5 



*0 



- <*'_/*. : 




% LIBRARY OF GRESS. 



Shelf 



..GjSl 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ^ 



PURITANISM 



NOT 

GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 

BEING A REVIEW OF 

« THE PURITANS AND THEIR PRINCIPLES, 
BY EDWIN HALL." 

BY THE 



REV. A. B. CHAPIN, M. A 




STANFORD AND SWORDS, 

139, BROADWAY. 
1847. 



9h 






Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by 

STANFORD & SWORDS, 

in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the United States for the 

Southern District of New-York. 



John R, M'Gown, Printer. 



CONTENTS. 



Introductory Letter *• • . • «. } 

Nature and importance of the question - - - 17 

Misstatements of it - - - - - - 19 

Romish view of the Church - - - - -25 

of tradition - - - - - 28 

Reformers' view of the Church - - - - 26 

of tradition ----- 27 

Agreement of the Reformers 28 

Romish view of Justification - - - - - 31 

Protestant view - - - - - - - 32 

its foundation - - - - 33 

its consequences - 34 

Sense of Scripture, how determined 35 

Who are true Protestants - - - - - 36 

Puritanism a disease of Protestantism - - - 37 

Summary of Puritan Principles - - - - 38 

Deviations of Puritanism from the Reformation - 39 

(1) Justification - - - - - 39 

(2) Interpretation of the Bible - - 41 

(3) Legislative power of the Church - - 42 
1* 



iV CONTENTS. 

(4) Authority of the Church - - 43 

(5) Nature of the Church - - - 44 

(6) Nature of the Ministry 47 

(7) Nature of the Sacraments - - - 47 

(8) Sin of Schism 49 

Results of - - - 50 

Our agreement with the Reformers 52 

(1) Interpretation of Scripture - - - 53 

(2) Private judgment - - 53 

(3) Church authority - 54 

(4) The Church the medium of grace - 54 

(5) Baptismal Regeneration - - - 54 

(6) The Real Presence - - . - - 55 

(7) Authority of General Councils - - 57 

(8) Household Baptisms - - - 57 

(9) Representative character of the Ministry 59 

(10) Absolution 58 

(11) Justification ----- 60 

Ground of its necessity - - 61 

Puritanism cannot understand the Reformers - - 61 

The reason why - - - - 62 

Why the Reformers said no more of the Church - 63 

Divine institution of the Ministry in three orders - - 64 

The Ordinal - - - - 65 
Apostolic Succession - - - - -65 
What must be shown to prove that Churchmen have 

departed from principles of the Reformation - 67 

Mr. Hall's Proof. (1) The Institution of a Christian man 68 

(2) A paper forming a part of third book 68 

(3) The erudition of a Christian man 60 

(4) Stillingfleet's Irenicum - - 69 
His Puritan education 69 
His account of its design - - 70 
His maturer judgment - - 71 



Mr. Hall's misrepresentation of him 71 

Stillingfleet's own mistakes - 73 

A mistake of Burnett - - 74 

Points of agreement with the Reformers - - - 75 

Disagreement of Continental Reformers - - 76 

Lutheran rites and ceremonies - - - - 78 
Objections to the English Reformation (note) - 

The work of the State - 77 

Gradual in its character - - - 80 

Development of Ritual - - - - 81 

Its canonical character 85 

Puritanism has changed, not we - - - - 86 

Boasts of having changed 87 

Mr. Hall's view of Antiquity. (1) Irenasus - - 90 

(2) Clement of Rome 92 

(3) Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Ignatius - 95 

(4) Clement of Alexandria - - - 97 

(5) Jewel and Stillingfleet - - 99 
Mr. Hall's views of Scripture. (1) Schism 99 

(2) The incestuous Corinthian - 101 

(3) Our Lord's language at the last Supper 101 

(4) Ordination of Timothy - - - 103 

(5) Andronichus and Junia - - - 103 

(6) Ordination of Titus 104 
Points of difference between us. (1) The Church - 107 

(2) Baptismal Regeneration - - 108 

(3) The Real Presence - 109 

(4) The Ministry - - - - 110 

(5) Absolution - - - - -111 

(6) Apostolical Succession - - - 111 
Mr. Hall's account of the Church and her theologians 113 

The sincerity of it - 114 

The fancied result - - - - - - 116 

General character of the work - - - - 117 



VI CONTENTS. 

History of Puritanism ; Toleration of Churchmen - 119 

Exemplified at Stratford - - - - 120 

at Fairfield ; law of 1727 - 123 

Practice under that law : (1) Greenwich - 125 

(2) Simsbury 125 

(3) Waterbury 125 

(4) Reading 127 

(5) Churchmen exempt from public acts - 127 

(6) Not allowed to tax themselves - 127 
Taxation without representation - - - - 128 

Political tendencies - - - - - - 129 

Religious establishments in the Colonies - - - 129 

Change in Connecticut - - - - - 132 

Episcopalians and the Government - 133 

Toleration and new Constitution - - - - 135 

Connecticut « Blue laws" 137 

" Tables turned " 141 

Puritan kindness - - - - - - 142 

Episcopacy in New- York 143 

Gregson Glebe ----..- 145 

APPENDIX. 

Sympathy of the Reformers - - - - 151 

English Reformation and Melanchthon - - - 152 

Formula of Concord - - - - - - 153 

Episcopacy in Germany - - - - - 154 

Hermann's Plan of Reformation - 155 
Sympathy of Reformers - - - « - -156 

Lutheranism and the Reformation - - - 156 

School of the Pietists 157 

of Ernesti and Semler - - - - 158 

of Rationalism - - - - - -159 

of the Supernaturalists - - - - 160 

New Lutheran 160 



CONTENTS. Vll 

Neanders defects as a Church historian - - 163 

New Lutheran view of the Sacraments - 168 

Baptism. Rev. Dr. Hengstenberg - 168 

Christianity Sacramental - - - - 169 

One Sacrament in two parts - - - - 170 

Difference of the two - 171 

Rev. Dr. Martensen 171 

(1) Baptism in an organic body - - 172 

(2) Essentially infant Baptism - - 174 

(3) Sacramental Predestination - - 175 

(4) Sacrament of Regeneration - - 177 

(5) Sacrament of Faith - - - - 179 
Fapers which passed between Charles I. and Rev. Al- 
exander Henderson 183 



ERRATA. 

Page 109, line 12, for " shall see," read have seen. 
" 121, " 8, for " 1780," read 1708. 



INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 



To the Rev. Wm. Cooper Mead, D. D. 
Reverend and Dear Sir : 

In presenting the following Review to the public, it 
is my duty and desire to acknowledge, that, should it 
be of any service to the cause of truth, no small share 
of the thanks will be due to yourself, — for calling my 
attention to the subject, — for aiding me with many 
valuable suggestions, — and for securing it a ready 
entrance upon the literary world. This statement 
is made, not with the wish or intention of avoiding 
any responsibilities which the course of argument 
here pursued devolves upon the author. For the 
positions, facts, and logic of the Review, the author 
is alone answerable. But since it w T as owing to 
your partial kindness, that I was led to undertake 
this subject, it is my desire to state briefly some con- 
siderations that led me to the course of argument 
here adopted. 

But first, it should be observed, that I do not 
2 



10 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 

propose to write an answer to The Puritans and 
their Principles, but only a review of those facts 
which bear upon what the author of that work evi- 
dently regards as its leading and most important fea- 
ture, the Protestant character of Puritanism. In 
doing this, it has been necessary to make a prelim- 
inary inquiry, — to ask, What is Protestantism ? not 
as understood by the ten thousand sectaries, who 
cloak themselves under its mantle, but as under- 
stood by the Reformers themselves. The necessity 
of this inquiry does not seem to have occurred to 
our author, and he has been content to adopt 
certain vague and popular notions in regard to it, 
which are floating up and down in his own denom- 
ination, without making any effort to ascertain their 
truth or accuracy. Indeed^ he does not seem to be 
aware of the diversity which exists between the 
principles of the Reformation and the principles of 
Puritanism. The first object of the following pages 
has been, therefore, to ascertain from unobjectiona- 
ble sources, what are the true principles of Protest- 
antism, as they were held by the Reformers. The 
next step is to try Puritanism by that standard ; and 
finally, to see how far our author's objections against 
the character of the Episcopal Church, as anti-Pro- 
testant, are sustained by the facts. 

The propriety, if not the necessity of this course, 
will be apparent from a brief history of the Episco- 
pal controversy in this country. When that contro- 



INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 11 

versy commenced, the Congregationalists of New- 
England called themselves Presbyterians, and 
insisted that the Presbyterian form of the ministry 
was an original divine institution, of perpetual and 
binding obligation, and from which it was schism to 
separate. The first publication in this country, 
which called that fact in question, so far as we 
know, was by a layman of Boston^ (1723,) for which 
he was indicted as a libel on the government. From 
this time the Episcopal controversy was carried on 
with great vigor for near twenty years, (1723-1739,) 
by Dickinson, Foxcroft, Graham, and Wiggles- 
worth, on the Presbyterian side ; and by Johnson 
and Beach, on the Episcopal side ; and the evidence 
to be derived from Scripture, Antiquity, and the 
Reformation, was pretty thoroughly scanned. The 
doctrine of Apostolical succession, as a matter of fact, 
however, was not debated, as both parties held it, 
one deriving it through the line of Bishops, the 
other through that of Presbyters. 

The effect of these discussions not arresting, as 
was hoped, the progress of the Church, but evidently 
accelerating it, the assailants left the worship and 
discipline, and turned to the doctrines of the Church. 
A ten years controversy (1739 — 1749) followed 
touching election, predestination, universal redemp* 
tion, baptismal regeneration, and other kindred doc- 
trines, of which Dickinson was the principal cham- 
pion of the Calvinistic opinions, and to which were 



12 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 

opposed Johnson, Beach, and Wetmore. This dis- 
cussion, like the preceding, adding numbers and 
strength to Episcopacy, was abandoned, and the old 
ground of the divine right of Presbyterianism re-as- 
serted. 

During the next twenty years, (1749 — 1768,) 
the constitution, worship and discipline of the Church 
were very thoroughly examined by Hobart, 
Chauncey and Wells, on the Presbyterian side, and 
Johnson, Beach, Wetjiore, Caner, and Lea?.i- 
ing on the Episcopal side. A collateral discussion 
was also carried on, touching the right of the 
Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 
to send Episcopal missionaries into places where 
there were Presbyterian ministers, by Hobart and 
Mayhew, against Johnson and Apthorp. Every 
one of these discussions increased the numbers, and 
strengthened the hands of the Episcopal Church ; 
until there was some prospect of obtaining what 
they had long desired, a Bishop to reside among 
them. 

A new element of debate was now brought out 
— the right of the English Church to send a Bishop 
to this country, and the propriety of doing so, in- 
volving of course the whole theory of the Church ; 
and the subject was thoroughly canvassed by 
Chauncey and Chandler, (1768-1774) over their 
own names, and by a host of anonymous scribblers, 
in the periodicals of the day. In the meantime, the 



INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 13 

Presbyterian ministers, not satisfied with the aspect 
of things, formed a " Convention of Delegates," in 
1766, for the alleged purpose of" defending the cause 
of religion against the attacks of its various ene- 
mies ; " by which was understood, as the sequel 
shows, the design of opposing Episcopacy. Among 
the most active men of this body were Messrs. 
Hobart, Wells, and Goodrich, of Connecticut, 
Rogers of New-York, etc. This Convention spared 
no pains to create a prejudice against the Church, 
and was in no small degree instrumental in fomenting 
the difficulties between the colonies and the mother 
country. During these various controversies, the 
Church and her ministers were assailed by every 
species of warfare, by book and pamphlet, by song 
and satire, by ballad and poem, by men in their own 
names, without any names, and under assumed 
names, by legal process and by illegal process, now 
upon one point, and now upon another, until the 
whole field of controversy had been carefully survey- 
ed, and Churchmen became thoroughly informed as 
to the distinctive principles of the Church. 

These discussions and controversies served to 
confirm the Churchmen of the northern Colonies, 
(to which they were mostly confined,) in their at- 
tachment to the Church, and to the mother country, 
so that when the Revolution broke out, the Episco- 
palians, when they took an active part, were gener- 
ally found attached to the royal cause. For this, 



14 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 

Churchmen universally suffered every species of in- 
dignity and insult, thousands had their estates con- 
fiscated, many were imprisoned, and some suffered 
death ; to escape which, others abandoned their 
country and their possessions, and fled to the British 
provinces. The close of the Revolution, therefore, 
found the Church weak, and poor, and despised, de- 
prived of most of her clergy, and many of her laity, 
and for some time she seems to have ceased to be 
an object of jealousy ; and an occasional essay on 
the subjects so sharply debated before, ficrn Sea- 
bury, Leaming and Bowden, attracted little or no 
attention. 

But the cause which rendered Churchmen so 
odious in the Revolution, was the salvation of the 
Church. That love and devotion to it, which led 
them to submit to privation and degradation, during 
the Revolution, preserved it in its completness after 
its close. From this time, (1785,) a period of twenty 
years was suffered to elapse before any considerable 
assault was made upon the doctrines or discipline of 
the Church. A controversy was then (1805) com- 
menced, as was generally supposed, by concert 
among a great body of anti- Churchmen, which 
continued for several years, in which the principal 
writers on the Presbyterian sile. ; were Linn, Mason, 
and Miller, and on the Episcopal, White, Hobart, 
Beasley, How and Bowden ; the effect of which 
was to make more and sounder Churchmen. 



INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 25 

The controversy in New- York coming to a 
close, it was renewed in Connecticut, about 1819, 
and the Church was exposed for several years to a 
series of assaults, which have been occasionally 
renewed from that time to the present. Most of the 
productions have been anonymous, and very few of 
them have attempted to discuss any important princi- 
ple, their general aim having been to excite prejudice 
against the Church, while some have assumed the 
false character of Churchmen, with the hope of be- 
traying the more successfully. 

The main questions, which have been debated 
in the controversies of the last century, have related 
to the character and claims of the Episcopal Church, 
as sustained by Scripture, antiquity, and the opinions 
of the Reformers. Churchmen have generally been 
content with maintaining their own cause, without car- 
rying the warfare into the enemy's country. But 
the time has now arrived, when the cause of truth 
requires, that the character of Puritanism should be 
investigated, that Puritanism itself should be put to 
the proof of its claims. These, so far as they de- 
pend upon Scripture and antiquity, have been inci- 
dentally considered in all those works which have 
been written in defence of Episcopacy. But there 
is another point which all Puritan writers assume, 
and which has been tacitly conceded by its oppo- 
nents, that requires to be investigated anew, — the 
true Protestant character of modern Puritanism ; 



16 INTRODUCTORY LETTER. 

is it the form of life of Protestantism, or rather 
one of its diseases ? These are the chief points of 
inquiry in this Review. The other topics are only 
incidental, and important for the particular purposes 
mentioned. The authorities quoted on these points, 
are mostly anti- Episcopal, in order to obviate an 
objection that Puritan writers are always making 
against Churchmen, of wanting in fairness towards 
them. We trust that the facts and arguments here 
adduced will satisfy the candid and intelligent of all 
sects and parties, of a most certain fact, to wit, that 
modern Puritanism has little or nothing in common 
with genuine Protestantism ; and that Puritan ca- 
lumniators of the Church, will see that they have 
something to do to sustain their own character and 
claims. Trusting that this discussion may tend to 
advance that unity which should prevail in the 
Church of Christ, 

I have the honor to be, Rev. and dear Sir, your 
obedient servant, 

A. B. CHAPIN. 
New-Haven, Oct. 1, 1846. 



PURITANISM 



GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 



NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION. 

"The great question of the age," says a learned 
and thoughtful writer of the German Reformed 
Communion, " undoubtedly is that concerning the 
Church. It is evidently drawing to itself all minds 
of the more earnest order, more and more, in all parts 
of the world. When it comes to be apprehended in 
its true character, it can hardly fail to be of absorb- 
ing interest ; nor is it possible, perhaps, for one who 
has become thus interested in it, to dismiss it again 
from his thoughts. Its connections are found to 
reach in the end, through the entire range of the 
Christian life. Its issues are of the most momen- 
tous nature, and solemn as eternity itself. No ques- 
2* 



] 8 PURITANISM 

tion can be less of merely curious or speculative in- 
terest. It is in some respects, just now, of all prac- 
tical questions, the most practical. In these circum- 
stances, it calls for attention, earnest, and prayerful, 
and profound." * 

To the truth of this representation, the history of 
the age bears abundant .testimony. The new life so 
recently infused into the Romish Communion, the 
discussions going on in the Church of England and 
America, the recent birth and vigorous life of the 
new Lutheran and Reformed theology, as well as 
the turbulence of all the sects and parties in Chris- 
tendom, go to prove that the question of the Church 
and of our relation and duty to it, is the great 
question of the age. That great issues depend upon 
the proper settlement of this question, no one at all 
conversant with the history of the world and the 
Church, can for one moment doubt. And no man, 
xvho understands and appreciates the importance of 
the results depending thereupon, can approach the 
subject with other than a deep feeling of responsi- 
bility, and a solemn sense of the consequences 
which may flow from the manner of its treatment. 

By such, no word will be lightly or inconsiderate- 
ly spoken. No argument will be pressed beyond 

*Rev. JolinW. Nevin, D. D., Introd. to Dr. Schhaf, 
on the " Protestant Principle, as related to the present state 
of the Church," p. 26. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 19 

the limits of sound logic — no statement ventured 
that is at all questionable. Nothing will be said for 
mere effect — nothing done which truth does not de- 
mand. Appeals to passion and prejudice will not be 
permitted. All declamation will be forborne, and 
misrepresentation most carefully avoided. When, 
therefore, we find one employing any mere ad captan- 
dum declamation ; any palpable sophistry, any plain 
misrepresentation of facts, or of an opponent's po- 
sitions or his arguments ; any appeals to passion^ 
prejudice, or ignorance ; any unscrupulous asser- 
tions unsustained by proof ; but above all, when we 
find one resting his whole case on mere second-hand 
or second-rate authorities, and in doubtful points quo- 
ting disputed and oft-refuted works, without any re- 
ference to the fact, we must conclude, either that he 
is intellectually deficient, not understanding the sub- 
ject, or which is worse, morally deficient, fighting 
for victory, not for truth ; insensible to the high and 
holy claims of the subject under consideration. 

MISSTATEMENTS OF THE QUESTION. 

Owing to some or all of these causes united, the 
popular mode of stating the question has been, and 
still is, in this country, to a great extent, monstrously 
false. Thus we are told by one class, that the great 
point of conflict and debate is, whether we shall 
have a religion of forms, or a religion of the 



20 PURITANISM 

spirit.* Such claim to be the friends of inward, liv- 
ing, practical piety, and often charge upon others, a 
secret dislike to all religion of the heart and life, 
and represent them as wishing to exalt the 
letter above the life, to substitute the sign for 
the substance. But this issue is false. The condition 
of humanity, renovated as well as depraved, is not 
body or soul, but body and soul. Religion too, in its 
application to man, must have body as well as soul, 
form as well as life ; and he w T ho would be a spirit- 
ualist only, is as far from the truth as the most thor- 
ough-going formalist. The question relates not to the 
existence of forms in religion, but to their nature and 
extent. It is not whether religion shall have an 
outward form or body, but what that form and body 
shall be. 

So, too, we are told, that the great question of the 
day is whether salvation be the individual concern of 
every sinner, or something which comes to him only 
through the Church ; whether it is the result of a pri- 
vate, separate transaction of the sinner with God's 
Word and Spirit, or whether it comes to him 
through the comprehensive, but inexplicable minis- 
tration of the Church, which is the body of Christ, 
and especially in and through the Sacraments, j* 

*Nevin's Introd. 11 — 13, where the same view is taken of 
this and the two following statements of the controversy. 

t The New-Englander, I. 545 — 555, has urged this 
charge with all its strength. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 21 

This issue is also false. Mere Churchism, which 
denies all individualism is an error, a great error. 
But the substitution of mere individualism in its 
stead, is no les? an error. If the doctrine of spirit- 
ual individuality be so held, as to exclude the depen- 
dence of the individual spiritual life, upon the gen- 
eral life of the Church, it necessarily becomes one- 
sided and false. Individualism, without the Church, is 
as little to be trusted, as Churchism without individ- 
ual experience. It is the union of the two that con- 
stitutes the truth, and he who holds one side, to the 
exclusion of the other, is preparing the way for re- 
action in favor of the exclusive predominance of the 
opposite error. 

Again it is said, that the momentous question 
with which Christendom is now laboring, is be- 
tween the liberty of private judgment and the au- 
thority of the Church. This statement, too, is equal- 
ly false, * Nor is the matter mended when the ques- 
tion is represented as being between the Bible and 
the Church. In the language of the author already 
quoted: "It is indeed an abominable usurpation, when 
the Church claims to be the source of truth for the 
single Christian, separately from the Bible, or the 
absolutely infallible interpreter of the sense of the 
Bible itself; and so requires him to yield his judg- 

* The New Englander, II. 66 — 81, in a miserably false 
and feeble article, represents this as one form of the contro- 
versy, 



22 PURITANISM 

ment blindly to her authority and tradition. But it is 
a presumption equally abominable for a single indi- 
vidual to cast off all respect for Church authority and 
Church life, and pretend to draw his faith immedi- 
ately from the Bible, only and wholly through the 
narrow pipe-stem of his own private judgment. No 
one does so in fact. Our most bald, abstract sects, 
ever show themselves here as much under authority 

almost, as the papists themselves Such a 

thing as an absolute, abstract, private judgment, we 
meet with in no denomination, party or sect. But if 
we had it what would it be worth ? For at last what 
sort of comparison can there be between the naked 
judgment of a single individual, and the general 
voice of the Church?"* 

our author's view. 

The author of The Puritans and their Princi- 
ples, j* enters fully into this false and one-sided view 
of things, bringing up and urging in every variety of 
shape against his opponents, every one of these ab- 
surd and erroneous assumptions, endeavoring to 
sustain them by every species of false argument we 
have noticed. He even goes so far as to say, with 
especial reference to the Episcopal Church, that the 
battle of the Reformation is once more to be fought 
with those who once gloried in the style of Protes- 

* Nevin's Introd. 13. 

t [Rev.] Edwin Hall, [of Norwalk, Conn.] 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 23 

tant, but who are now beginning to be weary of the 
name.* And he marches forth, the boasted cham- 
pion of those great principles which he supposes to 
be in danger. But before we can accept his 
championship, or allow his charges, we must be as- 
sured of two things ; first, that he knows what were 
the points at issue in the Reformation — what was 
disputed and what not ; second, that he himself 
holds every one of the doctrines held by the Refor- 
mers, as they held them. If he is wanting on either 
point, or if, as we suppose, he is wanting on both, if 
he neither knows what they believed, nor believes as 
they did, he cannot be permitted to enter the lists 
in their defence, nor can his charges against others, 
of having departed from the principles of the Refor- 
mation, be allowed to have any weight, unless sus- 
tained by the most undoubted proof. 

OUR OWN POSITION COMPARED WITH THE REFORMERS. 

Since then, there is so much ignorance, and er- 
ror, and misrepresentation in the very statement of 
the question at issue, by the author of The Puritans 
and their Principles, it becomes important in the 
first instance to ascertain the true nature of the ques- 
tion to be considered, in order that we may deter- 
mine whether in his zeal against those he supposes to 
have departed from the principles of the Reformation, 

* p. 307. 



24 PURITANISM 

he has not flown in the face of the Reformers them- 
selves ; and also lest while we are attempting to pull 
down the strong-holds of an enemy, we be ignorant- 
ly ministering to his strength. That the questions now 
at issue, are the same as those which called the Re- 
formation into being, that we are called upon to fight 
over the same battles which Luther and Melancthon, 
which Crammer and Ridley and Latimer fought, is 
so often and so loudly reiterated by our author and oth- 
ers, that none of our opponents will call the fact in 
question. But though many of the points at issue are 
the same, the enemies are not altogether the same. 
On the one side, it is true, we have, as the Reformers 
had, Romanism, with its claim to an authoritative 
infallible Churchism, swallowing up and destroying 
the proper individuality of its members ; but on the 
other side we have a more thorough-going Sectar- 
ism than they had, with its claim to a no less infal- 
lible individualism, swallowing up and destroying 
the Church altogether. * They fought with their 
eye chiefly, oftentimes only, on the papal mon- 
ster ; we are obliged look out for the dragon's 
teeth that are continually springing up around 
us. While, therefore, the language of the Re- 
formers is always guarded on the one side, it is 
not always so on the other ; and he who over- 
looks or forgets this fact, as our author does at 

See New Englandism, 41 — 42. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 25 

every step, will never be able to do them justice, as 
he can neither enter into, nor appreciate their feel- 
ings. In order to understand, therefore, the true na- 
ture of the all absorbing questions which now oc- 
cupy the mind of the Christian world, we must in- 
quire, briefly as possible, what is the Romish idea of 
the Church, and of our relation and duty to it, and 
what was the idea opposed to it by the Reformers, 
and the consequences resulting therefrom ; and what 
is the sectarian idea of the same, which stands in 
the opposite extreme from Romanism itself; and how 
that view agrees with, and differs from the view of 
the Reformers. 

ROMISH VIEW OF THE CHURCH. 

The Romish system teaches that "the visible 
Church of Christ is the Son of God himself, ever- 
lastingly manifesting Himself among men in a hu- 
man form, perpetually renovated and eternally 
young, the permanent Incarnation of the same."* 
" The Church," therefore, with the Romanist, " is 
the body of the Lord, it is, in its universality, His 
visible form ; His permanent, ever renovated 
humanity ; His eternal revelation." f Conse- 
quently, " the authority of the Church," to use the 
language of one of its ablest modern defenders^ 
" is the medium of all which in the Christian reli- 

* Moehler Symb. 333. t Moeh. 351. t Moeh. 340. 



26 PURITANISM 

gion resteth on authority, that is to say, the Christian 
religion itself, so that Christ himself is only so far 
an authority, as the Church is an authority." Out 
of this Church it holds that there can be no salva- 
tion.* 

ROMISH VIEW OF TRADITION. 

This view of the Church compelled Romanism 
to regard the Church as the primary source of all 
religious knowledge, the foundation upon which 
even the Scriptures themselves must rest for author- 
ity ; and tradition, w T hich it regards as the living 
consciousness of the Church, must be independent 
of the Scriptures, and co-ordinate with them in au- 
thority.-)* 

reformers' view of the church. 

The Reformers could not accept this idea of the 
Church, but taught to use the language of a living 
writer of the German Reformed, that " the visible 
Church is the body of Christ," that it is " an institu- 
tion founded by Christ, proceeding forth from his 
loins and animated by his Spirit ; through which 
alone, as its necessary organ, the revelation of God in 
Christ becomes effective in the history of the 
world, and that " out of the Church, as there is no 
Christianity, there can be no salvation ;" that "as 
the life of the parent flows forward in the child, so 

* Creed Pope Pius IV.* t Coun. Trent. Sess. IV 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 27 

the Church also is the depository and continuation of 
the earthly human life of the Redeemer, in his 
threefold office, of Prophet, Priest, and King," and 
" like her divine founder, has a divine and human, 
an ideal and real, a heavenly and an earthly nature." 
In regard to " single Christians, the Church is the 
mother from which they derive their religious life, 
and to which they owe, therefore, constant fidelity, 
gratitude and obedience ;" and that " only in such 
regular and rational subordination, can the individ- 
ual Christian be truly free, and his personal piety 
can as little come to perfection, apart from the in- 
ward and outward communion with the life of the 
Church, as a limb separated from the body, or a 
branch torn from the vine."* 

reformers' view of tradition. 

With this view of the Church they could do 
nothing less than reject the Romish notion of tradi- 
tion. But they were far from rejecting tradition al- 

* Schaf. " Theses for the Time," §3,4, 6, 7, 11, 12. This 
language is more precise and formal than any that can be 
found in the writings of Luther, or generally, in those of Me- 
lanchthon, and yet it is the only view that can give logical 
consistency to the doctrines which Luther taught ; his idea 
of baptismal regeneration, of absolution, of the real presence, 
wo .Ad be idle phantoms without it. But though the phrase- 
ology is not that of Luther, it is but the scientific develop 
ment of what he actually taught. 



28 PURITANISM. 

together, as many seem to suppose. The thought 
of substituting their own private whims and fancies, 
for the general voice of the Church, never entered 
their minds. With them, tradition was, to use 
the language of the same author, " not a part of the 
divine word, separate from that which is written, but 
the contents of Holy Writ itself, as apprehended and 
settled by the Church ; not an independent source 
of revelation, but the one fountain of the written 
word, carried forward in the stream of Church con- 
sciousness."* 

AGREEMENT OF THE REFORMERS. 

According to our author, this opinion is the doc- 
trine of the Church of England and her daughter 
in America, and we may add, that it is the doctrine 
of the old and the new Lutheran schools, both in 
Europe and America,*)* though not of the middle 

* Schaf. Prot. Principle, 82, 87. Chemnitz Exam. Coun. 
Trent. Part I. 120. 

t See Dr. Nevin's Sermon before the German Reformed 
Triennial Convention, 1844, referred to in Schaf. 170. The 
doctrines of the New Lutheran School are the undoubted 
doctrines held by Luther, though his language was not al- 
ways consistent with them. Indeed, it would be expecting 
more than we have any right to ask, to require, that a man, 
educated as Luther had been, circumstanced as he was, with 
enemies like those about him, should always, in all situations, 
in public and in private, speak with entire accuracy or even 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 29 

schools of dogmaticism, indifferentism and rational- 
ism,^ and that it pervades extensively the Reform- 
consistency on every point. The latest deliberate acts of such 
a man, must be regarded as his maturest opinion — as the 
best exposition of his own doctrines. But these Luther was 
not permitted to carry out. " Much," says a learned English 
writer, u both in the internal and external circumstances of 
the German Reformation, occurred to prevent its full and 
adequate development. Had this been perfected in the spirit 
in which its great instrument might have completed it, if per- 
mitted tranquilly to finish his work, or supported by others, 
acting in his own principles, and surveying the whole system 
of Revelation with the comprehensive and discriminating 
view of his master mind, the history of the German Church 
had probably been altogether different ; the results which it 
is now reaching, after centuries, [in the new Lutheran 
school,] and at which it is arriving through a fearful transi- 
tion, might have been even then attained." Pusey's Germ. 
Theol. I. 7. 

* This remark is true of the whole period, from the adop- 
tion of the Formula of Concord, A. D. 1580, to the rise of 
the new Lutheran School, of the orthodox, as well as of others. 
Though this Formula was composed almost entirely in the 
words of Luther, it did not fairly represent his sentiments, 
inasmuch as it embodied ideas hastily thrown out in contro- 
versy, and oftentimes subsequently recalled or modified, along 
with his maturer judgments. From the adoption of the For- 
mula, until the rise of the New Lutheran School, the ortho- 
dox scarcely spoke, except in the language of the Symbolical 
Books, and those who, as did Calixtus, referred to primitive 
antiquity as a secondary authority, were persecnted without 
mercy. No writers of this period, therefore, can be received 
as fairly representing the opinion of the Reformers. The 



30 PURITANISM 

ed Communions of Germany and their descendants 
in America.* But though this was the common 
doctrine of all the Reformers, the Church of Eng- 
land alone so incorporated it into her system, as to 
be able to retain it in practical life, and has, there- 
fore, been able to retain entire, that objective tra- 
dition, which is " that aggregate faith of the 
Church through all ages, as exhibited in external 
historical testimonies, "■(• which all other bodies have, 

writers of the first age were too dogmatic — those of the next, 
too indifferent to enter into the feelings of the Reformers. 
The Pietists, who sprung from the school of Spener, could 
not do it for want of ability, nor the later Supernaturalists, for 
the same reason. Even those who were among the most 
learned and orthodox, as for example, Storr and Flatt, and 
Rheinhard, seldom rose above the lowest sense of the Bible 
and Symbolical Books. They had no sense of the Holy 
Ghost in the Church, and many of them endeavored by va- 
rious compromises to make Christianity as agreeable as pos- 
sible to the natural man. They treated with the enemy, in 
fact, until many of them fairly fell over to his side, as in the 
case of Schott, Ammon, and Bretschneider. Wingard Rev. 
Church, 182, 183. Schaf, 147. Pusey Germ. Theol. I. 7—25, 
125-186, II. 119—313, 382—422. Sack's Lett, to Pusey, 11. 
Bretschneider's reply to Rose, 27-42. For the peculiarities and 
the influence of the Rationalistic School, see New England- 
ism not the Religion of the Bible, 22 — 33. And for some of 
the causes that have contributed to the introduction of the im- 
proved condition of things, the State of Religion in England 
and Germany Compared, 34 — 38. 

* Dr. Nevin's sermon, ubi supra, 

t Comp. Moeh. 352, Schaf. 7.45. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 31 

in a greater or less degree, lost. Even the Con- 
tinental Reformers themselves, from the peculiarity 
of their situation, and the supposed necessity of the 
case, were led to give up one important point, 
which they acknowledged to be part of this " ag- 
gregate faith of the Church in all ages" — the ne- 
cessity of Episcopacy to the well-being, if not to 
the being of a Church,* and all the evils arising 
from other sources, in those communions, have, no 
doubt, been increased and perpetuated by the ab- 
sence of this safeguard. 

ROMISH VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION. 

But there is another principle which, so far as the 
Reformation was concerned, is more important and vi- 
tal than this one, which called it into being, and which 
gave it that moral power that has enabled it to with- 
stand all the attacks upon it, from within and with- 
out — the doctrine of justification by faith. It was this 
which made Luther invincible, and which nerved 
the martyrs of England for the stake. The Church 
of Rome holds > that the natural state of man since the 
fall, is one of weakness, not of positive corruption ; 
so that the power of willing and doing good works, 
though weakened, is not destroyed, and that they 

* That the Continental Reformers would have retained the 
Episcopacy, if they could, at firsts has been so often shown, 
that no proof need be added. 



32 PURITANISM 

co-operate in the sinner's justification. Conse- 
quently, when these powers are invigorated by the 
gracious calling, the sinner disposes himself to the 
acquisition of the same, so that God's grace and the 
human will work in conjunction ; the one by illumi- 
nation, the other by freely consenting and moving 
towards God.* Justification, according to the teach- 
ing of Romanism, is not accomplished at once, but is 
the work of time, — is not the accounting, but the mak- 
ing of us righteous, — is not the act of God alone, but 
the conjoined effect of God's grace, along with 
faith and works on our part. And it carries its 
estimate of human virtue so far, as to teach, not only 
the possibility of a perfect fulfillment of the whole 
law, but also of super-meritorious works, which are 
deposited in the treasury of the Church, to help out 
the short comings of less obedient souls. f Nor is 
the grace by which we are justified, in connection 
with faith and works, apprehended by faith alone, 
but communicated, in part, if not wholly, by the 
sacraments. £ 

PROTESTANT VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION. 

To this view the whole body of Reformers op- 

* Coun. Trent, Sess. VI. cc. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, Can. 5, 6, 7, 
Moeh. 134—142. Comp. Schaf. 56, 57. Views of Gospel 
Truth, 1 9, 23. 

t Coun. Trent, ubi sup. Hooker on Just. §3 — 5. Moeh. 
168—201. Views of Gospel Truth, 42—45, 78, 79. 

t Coun. Trent, Sess. VI. cc. 7, 8, 15. Sess. VII. c. 1. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 33 

posed the primitive and scriptural doctrine, of man's 
entire alienation from God and his justification by 
faith only. Thus all merit on the part of man is 
set aside, and all ability of man to co-operate in the 
work of justification, forever set at rest. 

ITS FOUNDATION. 

The great principle of the Reformation, there- 
fore, — that which has with much truth and propriety 
been called the Protestant Principle, is that of 
justification by faith, and which, as taught by all the 
Reformers, both English and Continental, was based 
on the assumption, that man by the fall, " lost not 
only the image of God, but also all power and 
ability, either of willing or doing works, pleasing 
and acceptable to God, in consequence of which the 
heart became wholly estranged from God, and con- 
tinually prone to evil."* Hence they deduced that 
prime article of the Reformation, the absolute neces- 
sity of the sinner's justification before God, by the 
merit of Christ alone, through faith. \ 

* Schaf. 60. Views of Gospel Truth, 17—19. Augs. 
Conf. Art. 2, 4, Smalk. Art. 3 : 1. Helv. Conf. ii. 8, 9. 
Heidi. Cat. Ques. 7, 8. Gall. Conf. Art. 10, 11. Belg. 
Conf. Art. 15. Can. Syn. Dort. cap. Ill art. 1, 2,3. 

t This is the full statement as given by Schaf. Prot. Prin. 

p. 54. The New Englander, the champion of Puritanism, 

says " the fundamental principle of Protestantism," that is, 

Puritanism, " is that the Bible is authority, and the only au- 

3 



34 ptmiTANisM 

ITS CONSEQUENCES. 

This doctrine, viewed in relation to the material 
or life-principle, is the doctrine of the justification 
of the sinner before Gob, by the merit of Chkist 
alone, through faith. Viewed in relation to the 
formal or knowledge-principle, and it is the proposi- 
tion, that the Word of God, as it has been handed 
down in the books of the Old and New Testaments, is 
the pure and proper source, as well as the only cer- 
tain measure, of all saving truth.* 

ihority in religion, the sole and sufficient rule of faith and 
practice." N. E. II. 66, — a position that is contradicted by 
every page of history relating to the Reformation. " It is a 
very current idea," says Schaf. Prot. Prin. 53, " particularly 
in the Reformed Church, that the doctrine of the exclusive 
authority of the Sacred Scriptures, forms the proper center 
and root of Protestanism. But this we can not admit, al- 
though the Christian life of the Reformers was shaped from 
the beginning by the Scriptures. For this principle is formal 
only, and so secondary, presupposing the presence of a defi- 
nite substance which it must include. In order that the 
Scriptures may be taken as the exclusive source and measure 
of Christian truth, it is necessary that the faith in Christ of 
which they testify, should be already at hand, and that their 
contents should have been made to live in the heart, by the 
power of the Holy Ghost, accompanying the word and the 
Church" This is all for which Churchmen contend. 

* Schaf. 71. The Puritans say, " the sole fountain, stand- 
ard and judge" and the Romanist charge the same upon the 
Reformers. Comp. N. E. II. 66, and Moeh. 382. The Re- 
formers said " source and measure" not judge, 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 35 

SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, HOW DETERMINED. 

Thus far there is no controversy among true 
Protestants. Nor was there any controversy among 
the Reformers, as to the further question, how the 
sense of these books is to be ascertained and de- 
termined. The boasted right of 'private judgment, 
in the modern sense of the language, never entered 
their thoughts. They held, that while faith alone justi- 
fies, it produces good works, as its necessary fruit ; 
so also, that while the word of God is the only fountain 
and source of knowledge, it flows forward in the 
Church, and comes there continually to clearer and 
deeper consciousness ; * and that the interpretation 
which we are bound to receive on all great points 
of doctrine, and by which we are to abide, is that sense 
which has been apprehended and settled by the 
Church.f Hence, the Catholic Creeds ; the de- 
cisions of all General Councils, that could properly 
be called such ; and the consent of the early Church, 
were considered as binding on us, in all important 
questions of doctrine. :(: 

* Schaf. 71. 

t Schaf. 81, 87. 

t This is substantially the view of all Churchmen, though 
it is one which has given Mr. Hall so much trouble. It is 
evident that he neither knows the nature of the rule of Vin- 
cent of Lerins, which is applied to all such inquiries, nor un- 
derstands the principle of its application. Had he known 
th ; s, he would have seen, that it matters little whether we 



36 PURITANISM 

WHO ARE TRUE PROTESTANTS. 

This being the true Protestant principle, those 
only are true, are genuine Protestants, who con- 
tinue to hold and teach the same ; those only who do 
this, are prepared, or even able to fight over the 
battles of the Reformation ; they alone can enter 
into the feelings and understand the language of the 
Reformers. And it was the agreement of the Eng- 
lish and Continental Reformers, upon these great and 
fundamental principles, that produced the sympathy 
between them,* and not as our author supposes, 
a want of attachment to the primitive and apostolic 
organization that had been retained in England, but 
reluctantly given up on the Continent.-)- 

confine ourselves to two, three, four, or more centuries — that 
we must come to the same result. The rule is, " first the 
Bible, next the teaching of the Church Catholic ;" — that this 
teaching applies only to " what has believed every where, al- 
ways, and by all" Vine, on Heresy, etc. i. 1, 3. The three 
tests of Catholic teaching are, Universality, Antiquity, and 
Consent. When our author comes to understand the nature 
and application of these tests, he will be relieved of his diffi 
culty. 

* See on this subject Appendix, Note A. 

t On p. 279, our author, in reply to a passage in the Primi- 
tive Church, says, " it is notorious that the English Reform- 
ers uniformly treated the non-Episcopal Foreign Churcheg 
and ministers, as true Churches and ministers." If this ia 
81 notorious," he should have specified some instances, not 
considered and disproved in the " Primitive Church." Until 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 37 

PURITANISM A DISEASE OF PROTESTANTISM. 

We are now prepared to to inquire whether Pu- 
ritanism be genuine Protestantism ; whether it can 
fairly be employed as a standard by which to judge 
of the Reformers and the Reformation ; whether it is 
to be regarded, as we suppose, as one of its diseases ; 
or whether, as our author imagines, it is to be consid- 
ered as the form of its life. The author of The Pu- 
ritans and their Principles, with all his co-laborers, 
regards it as the purest form of Protestantism, as its 
most living, active, vital representative. On the other 
hand, the profound and eminently learned Dr. Schaff, 

this is done, his wholesale assertions must go for mere decla- 
mation. He has given us nothing but the opinions of indi- 
viduals. We want the acts of the Church. But if we were to 
allow the facts to be as he alleges, it would by no means follow 
that we have departed from the principles of the Reformers. 
If our author desires to see what would have been then 
thought of such notions of the Church and the ministry as he 
holds, we would refer him to the history of Lewis Hetzer, 
John Campanus, Michael Servetus, Valentine Gentilis, and 
Loelius Socinius, all of whom were put to death by the Con- 
tinental Reformers, for teaching doctrines which we suppose 
our author would pronounce orthodox. Bayle III. 151, IV. 
338. V. 168, Moeh. 536. If the Reformers put men to death 
as heretics for holding similar opinions to those of modern 
Puritanism, it by no means follows that we are to fellowship 
those doctrines now, because those who hold them, ignorantly 
suppose them to be the genuine doctrines of the Reforma- 
tion. 



38 PURITANISM 

fresh from the new Lutheran School of Germany, and 
now Professor of Church History and Biblical Lit- 
erature in the Theological Seminary of the German 
Reformed Church at Chambersburgh, Pennsylvania, 
does not hesitate to classify it among the things pro- 
duced by one of the "diseases ofProtestanism" — the 
Sect-system ; which he tells us, " must be considered 
the more dangerous, [i. e. than Rationalism, its 
other disease,] because it ordinarily appears in the 
imposing garb of piety — Satan transformed into an 
Angel of light." * 

SUMMARY OF PURITAN PRINCIPLES. 

The principles of Puritanism, as stated by our 
author, and by which he judges of our departure 
from the principles of the Reformation, are— justifi- 
cation by faith alone, the fundamental principle of 
the Reformation ; the Bible alone, the rule of faith 
and duty ; Christ alone, the sole law-giver of his 
Church ; no human traditions in proof for matters of 
faith ; no human inventions to be imposed as essen- 
tial parts of divine worship ; these were the origi- 
nal principles for which the Puritans contended. *(* 
This may be Puritanism, but it is very far from being 
genuine Protestantism, as that was understood by 
the Reformers themselves. What they would have 
said to such an unchurchly view of Church principles, 

* Schaf. 117 t Hall. 30. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 39 

those familiar wi'h their writings can easily guess. 
They would have inquired for the Church, for the 
Ministry, and for the Sacraments. They would 
wished to have known why nothing was said of the 
body of Christ, why the sacred office of God's min- 
istry had been overlooked, and how the holy Sacra- 
ments could have been forgotten ? The presentation 
of such a summary of principles as a Protestant 
Creed, would have subjected the proposer to the 
anathema of every Reformer, from Cranmer to 
Zuingle. 

DEVIATIONS OF PURITANISM FROM THE REFOR- 
MATION— (1.) JUSTIFICATION. 

They taught the doctrine of "justification by faith 
alone, " but as a consequence of their view of man's 
depravity. Had any then taught, as many now do, 
that man's natural state, subsequent to the fall, is 
one of spiritual weakness and debility, but not of 
positive corruption, they would have been handed 
over to the Romanists without ceremony. * They 

* The case of Victorin Strigel, a pupil of Melancthon, a 
clergyman of Weimar, and Professor in the University of 
Jena, is a case in point. For teaching that man still retains 
ability to repent and turn to God, and that he is not entire- 
ly passive in conversion, he was imprisoned three years, from 
1559 — 1562, and was finally released through the interpo- 
sition of foreign princes. Mosh. III. 16, Pusey, L 16, 
Moeh. 144. 



40 PURITANISM 

knew no middle ground. A being whose spiritual 
powers had been destroyed, and his nature corrupt- 
ed, could do nothing to merit pardon, nothing towards 
his justification : one whose powers had only been 
weakened, and whose nature was not sinful, might 
do something towards both. The difference was 
heaven-wide ; it was the difference between Prot- 
estantism and Romanism. We should be glad to 
know where our author stands in this respect. The 
old Puritans would not have left us in the dark upon 
so important a point. If he stands on the true Protes- 
tant ground, why is he silent? If, on the contrary, 
he stands on new Calvinistic ground, * he has giv- 
en up the foundation on which the "Protestant Prin- 
ciple" rests, and is no longer a a true Protectant. 

WHAT IS THE BIBLE. 

There is a very important or fundamental inqui- 
ry arising in this place, which our author seems to 
have overlooked ; what is the Bible ? We refer not 
now to the proper mode of determining the sense of 
Scripture, but how are we to know what books should 
compose the canon. Our author says (p. 253) " The 

Bible is complete its canon is fixed and 

unalterable." But he adds, " no research has been 
able wholly to separate the spurious writings attribu- 

* As he is said to do, see Calendar II. 26, and Views of 
Gospel Truth, 59 — 75, for the New Calvinistic opinions. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 41 

ted to the Fathers, from the true." One knows not 
which of these assertions imply the greatest want 
of information. We have no doubt on the subject 
of the Canon, for the Church has settled the ques- 
tion for us. But " the private judgment" of our au- 
thor's associates is so far from being settled, that 
there is scarce a book in either Testament, that 
some of them do not doubt ; though there is a gen- 
eral agreement among them as to which of the 
Fathers are genuine.* 

(2.) INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. 

The Reformers, too, received the Bible alone 
as " the source and fountain of all saving truth." But 
they never dreamed of the modern notion of making 
that blessed book, as construed by every man's 
whim and fancy, as interpreted by every man's pri- 
vate judgment, the rule either of faith or duty. They 
believed in a living, Christian consciousness, mani- 
fested in the Creeds and Confessions of the early 
Church, in the decrees of those General Councils 
that could properly be called such, and in the consent 
of primitive antiquity, which was binding on us ; 
and they continually appealed to all as proof f They 

* See New Eng. not Rel. Bible, 23—27. 

t Luther himself appealed from the Pope to a General 
Council, and the other Reformers did the same. Scott's Lu- 
ther, I. 106. Schaf. 81. Cranmer also made an " Appeal 
from the Pope to the next General Council," and so did the 
Reformers generally. 
3* 



42 PURITANISM 

aimed at making no discoveries, and pretended to 
no discoveries. They only desired to wipe off the 
accumulated dust of ages, and to restore the body 
of Christ to its primitive brightness and purity, in 
doctrine and discipline. Puritanism on this point, as 
represented by our author, is as diverse from Prot- 
estantism, as from Romanism itself. 

(3.) LEGISLATIVE POWER OF THE CHURCH. 

The Reformers, too, in common with Romanists 
also, believed Christ to be the source and fountain 
of all power in the Church ; in the highest sense, 
"the sole law-giver of his Church." But that man 
can know little of those men or the history of their 
times, who imagines that they did not allow a 
subordinate legislative power in Christ's Church, 
acting in His name, and by His authority, in things 
not contrary to the revealed Word. And this power 
was exercised in every Reformed community, in 
framing Articles of Religion, and prescribing forms 
of worship.* 

* Augsbnrgh Confession, 1530. Confession of Basle, 1532, 
re-adopted 1561. Helvetic Confession, 1536. Smalkaldic Ar- 
ticles, 1537. Confession of Wittenberg, 1552. Gallic Con- 
fession, 1559. Belgic Confession, 1566. Bohemian Confession, 
1573. Our author himself, in another place, (p. 307,) allows 
the principle of a limited legislative power in the Church, 
but supposes it to reside in each particular congregation, ra- 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 43 

(-4.) AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

The Reformers too, Continental as well as 
English, admitted " human traditions,' • as our author 
calls them, as "proof in matters of faith." They 
received and bowed submissively to the testimony 
and tradition of the early Church, as expressed in 
the Council of Nice, in regard to the relation borne by 
the Son to the Father ; — that of the Council of Con- 
stantinople, in regard to the character and office of the 
Holy Ghost, and that of other later Councils on 
other important points of doctrine ; * and they even 



ther than in National Synods, or General Councils. And he 
quotes the opinion of Neander, whom he styles " the most 
distinguished ecclesiastical historian of the present day," as 
conclusive authority on this point. Our author seems not to 
be aware that he has conceded the whole point at issue, in 
regard to the existence of a legislative authority in the 
Church, reducing the inquiry simply to the place where that 
authority is lodged, and that the authority of Neander cannot 
help him. The General Association of Connecticut has been 
very express upon this subject. In a report on the subject of 
Councils, it is said, " though Christians have differed much 
in opinion as to what constituted the supreme judicature [of 
the Church,] yet in every form of Church government, there 
has been this supreme tribunal, whose decision has been es- 
teemed final." Proceedings, 182*2, p. 23. See Note B. 

• " The Lutheran and Reformed Churches have unhesita- 
tingly appropriated to themselves the ecumenical symbols, 
as true expressions of Church consciousness." Schaf. 88, 9. 



44 PtTRITAlttsM 

want so far as to appeal their own cause from the 
judgment of the Pope, to that of a General Council. 
They also retained, in Geneva and Germany as 
well as in England, many things in public worship 
which our author would consider as " human inven- 
tions."* 

(5.) NATURE OF THE CHURCH. 

But the difference between Puritanism and Pro- 
testantism, is even more clearly seen in the different 
views entertained by them, in regard to the Church, 
the ministry, and the sacraments. We have already 
seen that Protestantism regards the Church as the 
body of Christ, as an institution founded by Him, 
proceeding out of His loins, anointed by His Spirit, 
the medium by which His life is conveyed to its 
members, the continuation of the earthly human 
life of the Redeemer, in His threefold office of 
Prophet, Priest, and King, - )* — and that it is the ful- 
ness of Him that filleth all in all.J But Puritanism, 

* The Lutherans retain the gown, the cross, the crucifix, 
the wafer, candles upon the altar, make the sign of the 
cross, and practice confession, etc. etc. 

t But our author exclaims with astonishment at this very 
idea. 302, 355. 

t Our author expressly denies (p. 281) that Eph. i. 23, 
from which this language is quoted, and also Epk. v. 25, 27, 
has any thing to do with the Church as an organized or visi- 
ble body. But Eph. iv. 11, 12, he applies to the visible 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 45 

as represented by our author and his cotemporaries, 
knows nothing of ail this, — believes nothing of all 
this. It denies the existence of any such body, and 
can form no idea of any such means of communicat- 
ing grace. It begins by dividing off the whole body 
of the truly pious, into a distinct and independent 
regiment, united to Christ, not by means of the 
Church which is His body, but by some invisible 
bond, directly to the head itself, conferring upon 
these individuals, all spiritual blessings and graces,* 
thus leaving the invisible Church, poor, and wretch- 
ed, and naked, so far as any spiritual office, blessing, 
or object is concerned, f And having done this, — 
having dwelt upon this beggarly idea of a Church, 
human in its origin, authority, and power, until it is 
incapable, by its own confession, even of understand- 
ing the language of the Reformers and of those who 
truly represent their sentiments,^: they turn round 
and gravejy charge those who stand in the old paths, 
with having departed from the teaching of those 
eminent men of God, with idolatry almost, with 
superstition quite, in believing that "the Church is 

Church, (p. 282.) By what rule of logic or law of exegesis 
he applies the beginning and end of a narrative to an invisi- 
ble bod}', and the middle to a visible body, we are not told. 

* Hall, 281, et. seq. New Englandism not the Religion of 
the Bible, 38, 39. 

t Views Gospel Truth, 97—99. 

X Dick Lect. Theol. XCI. 



46 PURITANISM 

the Mother from which the Christian derives his 
religious life, and to which he owes constant fidelity, 
gratitude, and obedience." And such are the men 
who charge Churchmen with having departed from 
the faith of the Reformers, and with being anxious 
to return to the embrace of the "mother of harlots." 
Because the ideas entertained by these men of 
the Church, are gross and carnal, they cannot un- 
derstand those who have entered into any thing like 
a full comprehension of the deep mystery of " Christ 
and his Church." They have lost sight of that doc- 
trine, so precious in the sight of the Reformers and 
the primitive Christians, that to those who have 
been justified by faith, through the merits of Christ, 
" a new nature has been imparted also, by an actual 
communication of the Saviour's life over into his 
person," through the medium of the Church. They 
know nothing of that blessed doctrine, "that the 
very life of the Lord Jesus is found reaching over 
into the person of the renewed man, and gradually 
transfusing it with its own heavenly force." They 
can not even conceive how that "the life of the be- 
liever involves a communion with the body of 
Christ, as well as with His Spirit."* Nor can 
they imagine how bald, and barren, and unsatisfac- 
tory is the modern Puritan view of the Church, to 
those who have felt the power of the true faith in 
their inmost souls. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 47 

(6.) NATURE OF THE MINISTRY. 

The Reformers also taught the divine institution 
and perpetual obligation of the sacred ministry, " and 
they attached, as every one knows," says a learned 
and judicious writer of the present day, " an impor- 
tance and sacredness to the office of preacher, which 
we are apt to consider extravagant ; and not without 
reason, if the circumstances of our own day are to 
regulate our belief."* With these exalted notions 
of the ministry, the Puritanism of our author and his 
cotemporaries, has nothing in common.")* Nor 
would it be consistent or reasonable to confer any 
spiritual functions upon the officer of such an unspir- 
itual body as is the Church, according to their 
opinion. 

(7.) NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 

And with the un spiritualizing of the Church and 
the degrading of the ministry, we also find among 
the modem Puritans, a degradation of the Sacra- 
ments also. " The idea of the inward union on the 
part of the believer, with the entire humanity of 
Christ, has in all ages," says a learned writer of 
the German Reformed Communion, " entered deep- 
ly into the consciousness of the Church 

Hence the earnestness with which the Reformers 

* Maurice, 103. t Views Gospel Truth, 100. 



48 PURITANISM 

generally maintained the doctrine of the real presence 
in the sacraments."* Indeed upon no two doc- 
trines were the Reformers more universally united 
and none were urged, next after justification 
by faith, with more zeal, than those of Baptis- 
mal Regeneration, j* and the Real Presence of the 
Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.:): Up- 
on both of these points, modern Puritanism has de- 
parted so far from the principles of the Reformation, 
that it charges those who retain them with heresy, 
and finally confesses itself unable even to attach 

* Nevin's Sermon, 198. 

t Maurice, 94, 106. " This at least is certain, — that the 
doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration was held by Luther, not 
in conjunction with that of justification by faith, (as he 
might have held any doctrine which belonged to the natural 
philosophy of his age,) but that he grounded the one on the 
other" lb. 255. For the opinion of Calvin see Institutes, b. 
IV. xv. 1, 2, 5, 6. xvii. 1, and New Eng. not Rel. Bib. 44, 45. 
" It works remission of sins." Luth. Short Cat. c. iv. §4, 2. 
" Imparts regeneration and forgiveness of sins." Muensch. 
Dog.Hist. Part II. c. ii. §199. But " the sacraments do not 
produce justification as a matter of course," " without faith." 
Augs. Conf. XIII. Luther also held, that the spiritual 
work begun in baptism, continues through life. " Where- 
fore also baptism, to xovrgov tn; avctxcLivaxretos, (as Luther 
says,) must be brought into operation throughout the whole 
life." Titt. Syn. N. T. 109. Compare Maurice, 249. " Bap- 
tism is not a momentary act but a perpetual sacrament." 

t Schaf. 88. Nevins, 198. Moeh. 400. Luther to Albert 
of Prussia. Calvin Inst. IV. xvii. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11. 



HOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 49 

any meaning to the language applied to the Sacra- 
ments. 

(8.) SIN OF SCHISM. 

Another point upon which Puritanism is at war 
with the principles of the Reformers, is that of 
schism. "The object of the Reformers," says 
the learned author of The Protestant Principle, 
"was not to overturn the Church, and break the 
regular course of its historical life : but to restore 
it once more to the clear light and sure rule of God's 
word ; not to emancipate the individual to uncon- 
trolled freedom, but to bind him to the definite ob- 
jective authority of God's truth and grace. Luther 
exhibited the doctrine of justification as precisely the 
true ground of Christian union, and fought with all 
the strength of his gigantic spirit against the fanati- 
cal and factious tendencies of his time. His last 
wish, as that of Melancthon also, was for the 

unity of the Church Calvin utters himself 

against sectaries, with his own peculiar, cutting 
severity, and repulses the reproach that Protestantism 
itself was a sect, in the strongest terms." * But 
this is not the character of Puritanism. It has, says 
the same author, " a zeal for God, but not according 
to knowledge. Inflamed against the despotism of 
bad forms, and the abuse of such as are good, it 

* Schaf. 119, 120. 



50 PURITANISM 

makes war upon form in every shape, and insists 
upon stripping the spirit of all covering whatever, 
as though the body were the work of the Devil."* 
"It has no respect for history, "j* "It furnishes no 
security against sects. They make their appeal 
collectively to the sacred volume ; the devil himself 
does the same when it suits his purpose. Strongly 
also, as Puritanism and Congregationalism, in their 
theocratic state-Church period, endeavored to se- 
cure a religious and civil union of its members, a 
subordination of the individual to the general, the 
system is clearly impotent in this direction. It in- 
cludes no limitation for the principle of sects. It is, 
in its own nature, unhistorical and one-sidedly 
spiritualistic, and has no reason on this account to 
require or expect that its children should be bound 
by its authority, more than itself had been bound by 
the authority of its own spiritual ancestry.":]: 

RESULTS OF SCHISM. 

After describing the effect of these principles in 
the history of our country, this author gives the fol- 
lowing painful, but graphic account of the present 
state of things. " Thus we have come gradually to a 
host of sects, which it is no longer easy to number, 
and that still continues to swell from year to year. 
Where the process of separation is destined to end, 

* Schaf. 112. t Schaf. 113. X Schaf. 115. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 51 

no human calculation can foretell. Any one who 
has, or fancies that he has, some inward experience 
and a ready tongue, may persuade himself that ho 
is called to be a reformer ; and so proceed, at once, 
in his spiritual vanity and pride, to a revolutionary 
rupture with the historical life of the Church, to 
which he holds himself immeasurably superior. He 
builds himself of a night accordingly a new chapel, 
in which now for the first time since the age of the 
Apostles, a pure congregation is to be formed ; bap- 
tizes his followers with his own name, to which he 
thus secures an immortality, unenviable it is true, 
but such as is always flattering to the natural heart . 
rails and screams with full throat against all that re- 
fuse to do homage to his standard ; and with all this, 
though utterly unprepared to understand a single 
book [of the Bible,] is not ashamed to appeal con- 
tinually to the Scriptures, as having been sealed en- 
tirely, or in large part, to the understanding of 
eighteen centuries, and even to the view of the Re- 
formers themselves, till now at last, God has been 
pleased to kindle the true light in an obscure corner 
of the new world. Thus the deceived multitude, 
having no power to discern spirits, is converted, not to 
Christ, but to the arbitrary fancies and baseless opin- 
ions of an individual, who is only of yesterday. Such 
cow-version is of a truth only per-version, such Geo- 
logy, neo-logy ; such exposition of the Bible, wretch- 
ed im-position. What is built is no Church, but a 



52 PURITANISM 

chapel, to whose erection Satan himself has made 
the most liberal contribution."* 

Such were the principles of the Reformers, as 
drawn, not by a " bigoted High- Church Episcopa- 
lian," nor by an "illiberal ultra-orthodox Lutheran," 
but by the more free and liberal pen of a German 
Reformed writer. Such also are the principles of 
Puritanism according to our author, and such its 
tendencies according to the views of those who 
might be expected to have the greatest sympathy 
with them, the German Reformed of Europe and 
America. How diverse the one is from the other, 
we need not describe. We shall now proceed to com- 
pare the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, in this 
country, as represented by our author, not with the 
false standard of Puritanism, but with the real doc- 
trines and principles of the Reformers, in much the 
same order in which he has stated them. We 
shall thus acertain whether we have departed from 
the old paths of the Reformation, as our author 
alleges, or whether his charges are based on ignor- 
ance and misrepresentation of them. 

OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE REFORMERS, WHERE 
PURITANISM DIFFERS. 

On p. 30 — 32, our author has made a summa- 
ry of some of those principles, which he says are 

* Schaf. 116. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 53 

maintained by the Episcopal Church, against which 
the Puritans are waging war, with their utmost 
strength and power. Some of the principal of these 
alledged errors are : 

(1.) INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

That we only receive " the Holy Scriptures 
as they were interpreted by the Church" So did all 
the Reformers, Continental as well as English, so 
does the Episcopal Church, and so, also, do the Lu- 
theran and Reformed Communions. But Puritan- 
ism pronounces this treason against God. * 

(2.) PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 

That we consider their " notions of private judg- 
ment erroneous ; so did all the Reformers, and so 
do all those who have not cut themselves loose from 

* We should like our author's opinion on the following Reso- 
lution of the General Association of Connecticut, passed 
June, 1812. " Resolved, that a profession of faith, made in 
the words of Scripture, is no definite exhibition of the real 
faith of the professor, since all persons who acknowledge the 
divine origin of the Scriptures, would, although some of 
them in faith are directly opposed to others, make the same 
profession in the same words." Proceed, relative to A. Ab- 
bott, p. 20. This doctrine was not peculiar to that session. 
It is taught in express terms by the Association of New 
Haven County, in their proceedings against Rev. John Hub- 
, 1770. 



o4 PURITANISM 

the life of the Church — Episcopalians, Lutherans, 
and Reformed — yet Puritanism glories in it. 

(3.) CHURCH AUTHORITY. 

That we hold that they are " without any suffi- 
cient bond of union," and that receiving " the Bible 
alone to the exclusion of all Church authority," must 
result in the " production of most incongruous sects." 
No language could be more in accordance with that 
of the Reformers. No doctrine more clearly theirs. 
Nor is it peculiar to the Episcopalian ; Lutheran 
and Reformed, respond a hearty "Amen," yet this 
doctrine is one of the most vital principles of Puri- 
tanism. 

(4.) THE CHURCH THE MEDIUM OF GRACE. 

That we consider "The Church the great me- 
dium of communicating divine grace" .... That 
we teach that " The revelation of God offers salva- 
tion only through the Church" That we 

hold, that " The true Church of God is our only ark 
of safety." True or false, so taught, so held the 
whole body of the Reformers, and so do Lutherans 
and Reformed, as well as Churchmen now teach. 
But Puritanism pronounces it heresy. 

(5.) BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 

Again it is said, that the "doctrine of baptismal 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 55 

regeneration, is directly opposed to the fundamental 
principles" of Puritanism, [pp. 31, 137.] But it 
was the doctrine of Luther,* of Calvin, and, indeed, 
of all the Reformers, and it is the authoritative teach- 
ing of all the old Puritan standards themselves. And 
yet modern Puritanism calls it heresy.f 

(6.) THE REAL PRESENCE. 

Again, the doctrine of the " real Presence of 
Christ in the Eucharist, is set down as among the 
dogmas which we teach, (pp. 136, 137,) and which 
Puritanism is endeavoring to subvert.:): But Luther 

* Augs. Conf. 2, 11. "The Lutheran divines discovered 
in the sacraments, the medium by which grace operates." 
Muensch. Dog. Hist. Part II. c. ii. §198. " Baptism impart* 
ed regeneration and forgiveness of sins." lb. §199. " It 
works forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the devil, 
and gives eternal salvation to all that believe." Luther's 
Short Catechism, c. iv. §2. Calvin says: " In baptism God 
regenerates us." Inst. IV. xvii. 1. See also IV. xv. 2, 5. 
New Englandism, 44, 45. Scot, and Pres. Conf. xxviii. 6. 
Camb. and Say. Conf. xxix. 6. For the doctrine of the new 
Lutheran school see Note C. 

t New Eng. 46. 

X This " reai presence," necessarily requires a consecra- 
tion, and necessarily makes the elements more than mere 
emblems, even " effectual means, as well as authenticated 
signs of grace," as our author allows, pp. 352, 371. Conse- 
quently his objection against us, is an objection against the 
Reformers themselves, 



56 PURITANISM 

also taught it, and Calvin also taught it. Yet these 
men had a controversy on the subject, the effects of 
which remain to the present day, because Calvin 
did not, in the opinion of Luther, teach it in terms 
sufficiently strong and explicit.* 



* This controversy related to two points, (1) as to the ubiqui- 
ty of Christ's glorified body, which Luther asserted (Muensch. 
lb. § 201) but Calvin denied, (Inst. IV. xvii. 30, where he 
calls it a " monstrous notion,") and (2) whether the body of 
Christ was imparted to the worthy recipient of the Eucha- 
rist, along with the elements, as Calvin held, or whether it 
was also consubstantiated with them, and thus conveyed by 
them, as Luther held. The bitterness of this controversy 
may be judged of by its effects. Hardenberg, a minister of 
Bremen, was deposed and banished in 1561, for teaching the 
Calvinistic opinion, and his followers excommunicated. Peu- 
cer, a physician, was imprisoned ten years for recommending 
for the theological chair at Wittenberg, a man who held sim- 
ilar sentiments. Pusey, I. 16, 17. 

The Dutch and German Reformed Churches in Europe 
and America, also teach it in strong and emphatic terms. The 
Heidleberg Catechism, the only common symbol of the Ger- 
man and Dutch Reformed Churches, (Pusey, 11.391,) says: 
M His crucified body and shed blood, are the true meat where- 
by our souls are fed unto eternal life. We are as really par- 
takers of his true body and blood (by the operation of the 
Holy Ghost) as we receive by the mouths of our bodies 
these holy signs in remembrance of him." Quest. 79. See 
also the Confession of the Reformed Churches of the Ne- 
therlands, adopted by the Dutch Reformed in this country- 
Art. XXXV, and Rev. Dr. Nevin's Sermon so often quoted. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 57 

(7.) AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 

Again, he calls the proposition, often made by 
Churchmen, to refer the unhappy state of the Church 
to a "General Council," "a holy alliance to de- 
throne the Lord Jesus Christ, and to give his seat 
and sceptre into the hands of a human hierarchy ! A 
holy alliance to throw down the Bible from the al- 
tar of God, and to exalt a mingled creed, the fruit of 
an incestuous compromise between truth and false- 
hood." (p. 278.) And yet Luther made and repeat- 
ed this appeal ; Crammer made the same appeal 
among his last acts ; and the great body of the Re- 
formers, English and Continental, did it over and 
over again. But Puritanism will hear of nothing of 
the kind. 

(8.) HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 

Again, he objects to the introduction, of all the 
people of any parish, city, or nation, by baptism in- 
to the Church of God ; and the doing of it, he re- 
gards as making "void an acknowedged ordinance 
of Christ." (pp. 291—293.) National Churches, 
of course, come under a strong condemnation, (p. 
292.) And yet the Reformers held differently on 
both points. They believed it was the duty of all to 
receive the ordinances of the Gospel, and if any re- 
fused, it was the duty of the magistrate to compel 
them ; and there was not a country where the Re- 
formation prevailed, that religion was not establish- 
ed by law. But Puritanism rejects both. 

4 






58 PURITANISM 

(9.) REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF THE 
MINISTRY. 

Again, he says that we make the clergy Christ's 
" representatives," as well as his " ministers," and 
calls it a most " extravagant claim." (p. 302.) But 
the Reformers made the same claim. Calvin says : 
" We must now treat of the Order which it has been 
the Lord's will to appoint for the government of his 
Church ...... as he dwells not among us with 

his visible presence, so as to make an audible de- 
claration of his will to us . . . . he uses the min- 
istry of men, whom he employs as his delegates . 
... he choses from among men, those who are to 
be his ambassadors to the world, to be the interpret- 
ers of his secret will, and ever to act as his person* 
al representatives " * And Luther, with his high no- 
tions of the sacraments, could not do otherwise than 
hold the same doctrine, though his language, espe- 
cially at first, is not always consistent with it. 

(10.) absolution. 

Again, another serious objection in the mind of 
our author, against the Episcopal Church, is the doc- 
trine and practice of "Absolution." (pp. 139, 369.) 
But he is not aware that in his zeal against us, 
he equally condemns all the Reformers. "In 
regard to Confession," says Luther, in the Augs- 

* Inst. IV. iii. 1. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 59 

burgh Confession, " our Churches teach that private 
absolution ought to be retained in the Churches." 
Art. 11. Again, "Confession is not done away in 
our Churches, for the body of the Lord is not de- 
livered to any except they are first examined and 
absolved. And the people are most diligently in- 
structed in the faith of absolution, of which before 
this time there was little mention. The people are 
taught to hold absolution in great esteem ; because 
it is the voice of God, and pronounced by his com- 
mand and that God requires faith that 

we should give credence to that absolution as to a 
voice sounding from heaven." Art. 25. Calvin also 
taught it, though in terms less positive and explicit.* 
And it was the doctrine of all the early Protestant 
bodies.")* 

We see, therefore, that on the points touching 
the Church, the ministry, and its representative cha- 
racter, the sacraments, baptismal regeneration, the 
real presence in the Eucharist, the authority of the 
Bible and of tradition, the propriety of household 
baptism, and the authority of general councils, upon 
which our author charges us with having departed 
from the faith of the Reformers, we now hold the 
very same doctrine as that which was taught by 
them all, Continental as well as English. And we 
may add, that we also agree with the new Lutheran 

* Inst. III. iv. 14. IV. i. 22. 

t Bing. b. XIV. French Church Apol. III. ix. 



60 PURITANISM 

School, and the Reformed, upon these very points. 
That we differ from Puritanism upon every one of 
them, we are free to confess, and this our author 
takes to be the same thing as differing from the 
Reformers. Indeed, he seems not to be aware, 
that Puritanism is totally diverse from the Protestant- 
ism of the Reformation, or that many of its friends 
claim no more than that it is the Reformation re- 
formed ; we should say rather, the Reformation re- 
volutionized, 

(11.) JUSTIFICATION. 

We also agree with the Reformers, in placing 
the material, or life-principle of the Reformation, — 
that of the justification of the sinner before God by 
the merits of Christ alone, through faith, before the 
formal, or knowledge-principle, which Puritanism 
places first. The fundamental principle of the Pu- 
ritan faith, what it calls " the Protestant Principle," 
is, on the contrary, that " the Bible is the only au- 
thority in religion, the sole and sufficient rule of 
faith and practice ;"* thus putting the external and 
formal, the secondary and subordinate, above the 
internal, spiritual, and fundamental. We agree 
with the Reformers also, in regard to the mode in 
which the sense of Scripture is to be determined, 

* New Eng. II. 66. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 61 

abiding by that which has been " apprehended and 
settled by the Church ;" while Puritanism, (theo- 
retically, at least,) refers the whole to the " private 
judgment" of any individual.* 

AND THE GROUND OF ITS NECESSITY. 

We also agree with the Reformers in deducing 
the necessity of our "justification by the merits 
of Christ alone, through faith," from man's utter 
inability to do any thing towards it himself. This 
foundation, on which justification by faith itself must 
rest, has been given up by all New Caivini3tic Pu- 
ritans, and how long they will continue to hold the 
faith resting upon the rejected foundation, no human 
foresight can telLf 

PURITANISM CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE REFORM- 
ERS. 

But when we have said that Puritanism is not 
the Protestantism of the Reformation, we have not 
said all that truth requires. Puritanism does not, 
and cannot, understand the Reformers. It has cut 
itself loose from the life of the Church — has sunder- 
ed the bond which binds all in one great whole ; 
and, standing in an exterior relation to the body it- 
self, can neither understand nor appreciate what is 

* New Englandism, 41, 42. 

t See Wingard, 191, 192, for the effect of such an aban- 
donment in Germany. 



62 PURITANISM 

passing within. It judges erroneously, therefore, 
because it sees but a portion of the evidence, and 
is incompetent to judge of the remainder, even 
could it be made to see it. It looks at the Reform- 
ers as it looks at itself. It considers each individu- 
al as an independent isolated atom, bound to the 
throne of Jehovah, as by a general law of gravi- 
tation ; not as a single member of one great body, 
united to the Head by joints and bands which min- 
ister nourishment to every part. And it considers 
union between the parts as resulting merely from 
elective affinity, not from a law of life. 

THE REASON WHY. 

But the Reformers held no such meagre and 
lifeless doctrine. They realized the great law of 
corporiety every where visible in God's dealings 
with man,* but especially with his Church. They 
regarded not themselves as mere individuals, each 
one acting for himself alone, but as a member of 
that body from which they could not depart without 
peril to their souls, — whose unity they could not 
rend without being guilty of heinous sin, and to 
which, as well as to God, they were responsible for 
all their acts. This Church they knew they might 
not touch. It was Christ's body, animated by His 
Spirit, the medium of communicating His life to 

* " Corporiety is the scope of God's ways." Oetinger. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 63 

men, especially in and through the sacraments of 
his own institution, by a ministry of his own ap- 
pointing. These were holy and sacred, things 
which might not be dispensed with, or set aside. 
All their acts were done under a sense of this high 
and mysterious relation ; and it is indispensable, 
when considering the Reformation, that these things 
should be borne in mind. Otherwise we can never 
understand either their language or their conduct. 
But this Puritanism does not, and can not do. It 
dwells merely upon what they did — considers mere- 
ly the act, and judges of the motive by its own 
false standard. It is incapable of feeling as the 
Reformers did, in regard to the Church and sacra- 
ments, and would not if it could. 

WHY THE REFORMERS SAID NO MORE OF THE 
CHURCH. 

The true reason, therefore, why so little was 
said of the Church, was, not that it was disregarded 
or undervalued, but, that its character and import- 
ance were not called in question. Every thing was 
done on the assumption of its reality and power. 
They aimed at reformation, not at revolution. Let 
any one read the Augsburgh Confession with the 
feeling that Luther and Melancthon had when 
they wrote it, and it will seem a very different thing 
from what it would, if interpreted by Puritan exe- 



64 PURITANISM 

gesis. No Puritan could have written that docu- 
ment, and no mere Puritan can understand it. It 
recognizes feelings that Puritanism has rooted out of 
its system, and breathes a spirit that Puritanism re- 
gards as hostile to the genius of true religion. The 
same remark is also true when applied to the 
XXXIX Articles. 

DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE MINISTRY IN THREE 
ORDERS. 

There is one other point upon which our author 
charges Churchmen with having departed from the 
faith of the English Reformers, which demands a 
distinct consideration. We refer to the subject of 
the ministry. That the ministry in the Church, 
was of divine appointment, all the Reformers held, 
but, from tenderness towards those who were labor- 
ing in a common cause, or, for some other reason, 
they rarely spoke out in explicit terms, in any au- 
thoritative document, as to the form in which that 
ministry ought to be perpetuated. And yet it could 
not be otherwise than, as the Reformers must have 
foreseen, that those, who carried out their own prin- 
ciples, should conclude, that a divinely constituted 
ministry must be a ministry in some form. And as 
a matter of fact, we find each community concluding, 
that its oiim ministry was that divinely appointed 
form. The Lutheran and Calvinistic, taught that 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 65 

that form was Presbyterian, — the Churchmen, that 
it was Episcopal. Now it would by no means fol- 
low that we departed from the principles of the 
English Reformers, when we assert the divine in- 
stitution and perpetual obligation of Episcopacy, 
had they not said a syllable on the subject. 

THE ORDINAL. 

But they did not leave us in doubt ; they prepa- 
red and published an Ordinal, or solemn form of 
ordination, which tells us of a ministry of divine 
institution, perpetuated from the beginning, in three 
orders ; under which they proceeded to perpetuate 
the same ministry by the same orders. This, then, 
was the solemn judgment of the English Reformers, 
and it is all the highest Churchman can ask. It is 
the carrying out of the principles of the Reformers, 
by the Reformers themselves. 

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

Another charge of departing from the faith of 
the Reformers, is based upon the same facts, 
viewed in reference to their consequences, in re- 
gard to the fact and necessity of an Apostolic Suc- 
cession ; a thing which our author pronounces " false 
in fact, corrupt in doctrine," " the very source of 
all the abominations of Popery." (pp. 371, 376)-— 
4* 



66 PURITANISM. 

Now if the Reformers believed in a divinely ap- 
pointed ministry, in any form, and also believed 
that that ministry had been perpetuated by the reg- 
ular calling of those who had filled it, they believed 
in the Apostolical Succession, That they did be- 
lieve both of these points, the Ordinal most expli- 
citly affirms. Consequently, no opinion of any in- 
dividual can be allowed to contradict this solemn 
decision of the Church. Even our author himself 
allows that those he condemns are but carrying out 
the principles of that Prayer Book which the Re- 
formers left us. It is, he says, the system, the doc- 
trine of the Church itself, (p. 370.) And yet he 
charges those who he confesses are faithfully carry- 
ing out the system of the Church, with departing 
from the sentiments of those who formed and per- 
fected that system. Whatever consequences are 
involved in this doctrine, are consequences which 
the Reformers must have felt and seen, and whether 
the principle be true or false, there has been no de- 
parture from their sentiments. Nor is it necessary 
to a belief in this doctrine, that we should hold to 
the necessity of being able to trace the list of Epis- 
copal governors ; the law of the Church being a 
sufficient guaranty of the fact, whether we could 
discover every link in the chain or not. Our abili- 
ty, however, to trace the succession, adds certainty 
to the fact. If either of these points are unproved, 
it must be easy to show it. And it would be much 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 67 

more to the purpose, for our author to point out such 
defect of proof, than to rest so much upon the opin- 
ion of men who have never examined the subject. 

WHAT MUST BE PROVED TO SHOW THAT CHURCH- 
MEN HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE PREACHING OF 
THE REFORMERS. 

Those, therefore, who would convict Churchmen 
of departing from the judgment of the English Re- 
formers, should show, either that this Ordinal does 
not mean as they suppose,* or, that there is some- 
where a proviso or condition which allows others to 
come in and claim the same privilege. No amount 
of extrinsic evidence whatever, can overrule or set 
aside this document, unless it gives to the language 
employed in it, a sense different from what we at- 
tach to it. But our author has not attempted this. 
He has seen fit to pass over the Ordinal entirely, 
and if his readers are not so fortunate as to hear of 
it from some other source, they will have no know- 

* This Mr. Powell, in his work " on," or rather against 
the " Apostolical Succession," has attempted to do, and he 
gravely argues, that when the Reformers said that " from the 
Apostle's time there had been these orders of ministers in 
Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," and when 
they said that all these were of " divine" appointment, they 
only meant that there were two distinct orders by divine ap- 
pointment, and one office of human origin. § VII. pp. 144, 
168. Our author has very wisely eschewed such a task, 
and in this respect has been more wise than his masters. 



68 PURITANISM 

ledge of its existence. We might, therefore, pass 
by his whole array of testimonies, as totally irrele- 
vant to the point of inquiry. But waving this privi- 
lege, we shall notice his several proofs, in order to 
gee what they would be worth, if there were nothing 
else in being on the subject. 

OUR AUTHOR'S PROOF. (1.) THE INSTITUTION OF A 
CHRISTIAN MAN. 

His first testimony is from " The Institution of 
a Christian Man" published 1538. 

(2.) A PAPER WHICH FORMS PART OF THAT BOOK. 

And his second, from a paper incorporated into 
that book, both of which contain this passage : "In 
the New Testament there is no mention made of 
any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of 
Deacons (or ministers,) and Priests or Bishops."* 
But unfortunately for our author, this is the opinion 
of these men as Romanists, not as Reformers, and 
the same book establishing every doctrine of Roman- 
ism, save the supremacy of the Pope.f And unfortu- 
nately for our author's fairness, he knew the fact. 

(3.) THE ERUDITION OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. 

His third testimony is The Necessary Erudition 
of a Christian Man, published 1540, which con- 

* Hall, 45. I Prim. Church, 401, 402, 2d edition. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 69 

tains a similar sentiment.* This was merely a new 
and enlarged edition of the former work, revised 
by some of the Bishops, and also corrected by the 
King, and the doctrine of purgatory only being now 
omitted.f In other respects it taught genuine 
Romanism. 

(4.) stillingfleet's irenicum. 

The remainder of his proof is all copied second- 
hand from a single work, — Stillingfleet's Irenicum. 
A brief account of the man and his work is therefore 
necessary, in order to understand the force of this 
evidence. 

stillingfleet's puritan education. 

Edward Stillingfleet, afterwards Bishop of 
Worcester, was born at Cranbourn, Dorsetshire, 
April 17, 1635, and educated at St. John's College, 
Cambridge, under the Puritan dynasty, and in 1653, 
was elected, by the Puritan authorities, to the first 
fellowship that became vacant after taking his bache- 
lor's degree. 

HIS IRENICUM PUBLISHED UNDER THE PURITAN 
DYNASTY. 

In 1657, he was presented to the parish of Sut- 
* Hall, 46. * Prim. Church, 402, 403. 



70 PURITANISM 

ton, Bedfordshire, but was ordained by Bishop 
Brownrigg, the ejected bishop of Exeter ; and in 
1659,* being then twenty-four years of age, he pub- 
lished his Irenicum, or A Weapon Salve for the 
Church's Wounds, etc. etc. The design of this work 
has been variously represented. 

HIS OWN ACCOUNT OF ITS DESIGN. 

The Puritans seem to have regarded it as a 
sort of apology for their principles,*]* but the au- 
thor himself some twenty years after, gives a very 
different account of the matter. In an Epistle 
Dedicatory, to an ordination sermon preached at 
St. Paul's, dated March 15, 1685, under the 
assumed name of "P. D.," he says it was written 
with the design of promoting the cause of the 
Church of England, and declares, in the most 
emphatic terms, that there is nothing in the book, 
which, when fairly and honestly interpreted, can 
serve the cause of faction or schism. He also says, 
" I believe there are many things in it which, if Dr. 
Stillingfleet were to write now, he would not have 
said, for there are some which show his youth and 
want of due consideration, and ethers which he 

* Neal, IV. 350, with his usual inaccuracy, says " 1661," 
but the life of Stillingfleet prefixed to the folio edition of his 
works, 1707, says, « 1659." 

t Neal, IV. 353. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 71 

yielded too far, in hopes of gaining the dissenting 
parties to the Church."* 

HIS MATUEER JUDGMENT. 

In that discourse he says : " There is as great 
reason to believe the apostolical succession [in the 
line of Bishops,] to be of divine institution, as the 
Canon of Scripture, or the observation of the Lord's 
Day."f But this youthful book, thus publicly re- 
canted by the maturer judgment of manhood, is our 
author's favorite witness. The usual answer to 
this is, that when Stillingfleet was made a bishop, 
he changed his mind. But this, beside being un- 
worthy of the man, is untrue, as he was not elected 
bishop until 1689. 

OUR AUTHOR'S MISREPRESENTATION OF HIM. 

But leaving these circumstances out of considera- 
tion, we proceed to consider so much of the evidence 
as is at all pertinent to the point at issue. Mr. Hall 
represents Stillingfleet as saying, that several di- 

* Life, I. 3. Stillingfleet had said two years before, (1683,) 
in the preface to this his Unreasonableness of Separation, 
" If any thing in the following treatise be found different from 
that book, [Irenicum,] I entreat them to allow me that, 
which I heartily wish to them, that in twenty years time, 
we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts, as to see reason 
to change our opinion of some things, and I wish I had not 
cause to add, of some persons." 

t See Bow. Lett. I. 241. 



72 PURITANISM 

vines were called together by the King's " special 
order ; " that certain questions were propounded to 
all, in answer to which, each gave his opinion in 
writing, and that " when all was agreed upon, the 
result was recorded in Cranmer's own hand" (pp. 
46, 47.) He tells us however, that he can give us 
only a part, and refers " those who would see it in its 
whole extent, to Stiliingfleet's Irenicum, where it is 
to be found." (p. 47.) Now the whole of this descrip- 
tion betrays an ignorance of the facts, which can only 
be accounted for, by supposing our author had nev- 
er seen the Irenicum, but quoted second-hand, from 
some untrust- worthy authority. For, first, Stilling- 
fleet does not profess to give the conclusions which 
had been "agreed upon," but only Crammer's own 
answers, except to a single question, of which our 
author has taken no notice. And second, he does 
not pretend to give the " whole extent" even of Cran- 
mer's answers, but only a part of the answers to a 
single set of questions. And third, what is given 
as the answer to the fourteenth question, was the 
answer to the thirteenth. * The substance of these 
answers, is, that Bishops and Priests were original- 
ly the same — that they might be made by each oth- 
er, or the people, or by the sovereign — that no con- 
secration was necessary, election or appointing be- 
ing sufficient. But this was the solitary opinion of 

* Irenicum, in Works, fol. 1707. II. 397—400. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 73 

Cranmer, who in his early life had some singular 
notions ; in this respect, not a single Bishop or 
Doctor agreeing with him. But had they all agreed 
with him, it would have proved nothing concerning 
the judgment of the Church, as it all took place be- 
fore the Ordinal was published, even according to 
the account of the Irenicum. 

STILLINGFLEET 5 S OWN MISTAKES. 

But there is another circumstance connected with 
these papers, which goes to show "the youth and 
want of due consideration" of the author. When 
the History of the Reformation came to be carefully 
investigated by Burnett, he found that the manu- 
script which Stillingfleet used, and which is without 
date, belonged not to the reign of Edward VI. as he 
supposed, but to that of Henry VIII. ; that its true 
date was 1540, and not 1549 ; that it was the opin- 
ion of these men as Romanists, and not as Reform- 
ers ; that it was one of the papers on which the 
Erudition of a Christian Man was based.* And it is 

* Comp. Iren. (Works Still.) II. 397—400. Burn. Hist. 
Ref. Vol. I. Part i. p. 373. Part ii. p. 256. Col. No. 21. 
Vol. II. Part i. pp. 61, 62, 81. Part ii. p. 141. No. 16, 
p. 160. No. 25. The author of The Puritans and their 
Principles will now be able to understand why the author of 
the Primitive Church said that the Erudition of a Christian 
Man, published in 1540, was the last public document of the 
Reformers which taught the original parity of Bishops and 
Presbyters. 



74 PURITANISM 

a fact worthy of notice, that in four years after the 
publication of the first volume of the History of the 
Reformation in 1679, Stillingfleet publicly recanted 
the opinions expressed in the Irenicum. All the 
evidence quoted by our author from the Irenicum, 
or given in the Irenicum itself, is that of a few soli- 
tary individuals, not among the list of Reformers, 
against the solemn decision, and uniform practice 
of the Church, and can weigh nothing in determin- 
ing their opinions and judgment. 

A MISTAKE OF BURNETT. 

But even Burnett's account of this matter does 
not do Cranmer foil justice. The answers which 
Cranmer gave in, first, contained the singular 
opinions already mentioned. But at some period 
during the discussion, Cranmer was led to change 
his opinion, and to subscribe the answers of Dr. 
Leighton, to the eleventh and twelfth questions, in 
which it is asserted, that Bishops might make Priests, 
though they ought not to do it without the King's li- 
cence, if a Christian country ; that they knew of 
no example, nor any authority of Scripture for any 
other course, and that consecration by the imposi- 
tion of hands was required by the example of the 
Apostles.* Cranmer's subscriptions to these an- 
swers, were inadvertently omitted by Burnett in 

* Bur. vol. I. par. ii. ; Rec. No. 21; Durell's Vind. I. 289 
in Chand. Appeal Defended, 27. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 75 

printing this paper, a fact which entirely changes 
the complexion of affairs in regard to Cranmer's 
opinion. 

POINTS OF AGREEMENT WITH THE REFORMERS. 

But our author is not content with charging us 
with having departed from the principles of the En- 
glish Reformers, he goes on to say that the Reforma- 
tion was not carried far enough in England ; not so 
far, even, as the Reformers themselves w r ould have 
carried it, had they been permitted. Puritanism, of 
course, is the carrying out of that Reformation. 
Some of these points have been considered already. 
We have already seen, that the Reformers, Conti- 
nental as well as English, agreed in regard to the 
nature of the Church and its office, the nature, au- 
thority, and character of the ministry, though not as 
to its orders, — baptismal regeneration, the real pres- 
ence, the authority of the Bible and tradition, though 
most of their descendants have, until recently, depart- 
ed from them all. Consequently the great question 
with our author is, whether the ministry should be 
perpetuated in three orders, or in one order. The 
Church of England decided in favor of three, and re- 
tained the Apostolical succession. The Church in 
Sweden did the same. The Church in Denmark 
retained the three orders, but has probably lost the 
succession. In Germany, Switzerland, France, and 



76 PURITANISM 

Holland, one order only has been retained. The 
question has been so often, and so thoroughly dis- 
cussed of late, in regard to the ministry, that Ave 
shall not enter at all into the argument at present. 
Those who wish to examine it, will find books ready 
at hand, adapted to all their wants. 

DISAGREEMENT OF CONTINENTAL REFORMERS. 

In regard to other doctrines, our author should 
have told us, who he would have had us follow; 
which of the Continental Reformers, he would have 
had the Church of England taken for its standard : — 
whether we should assert the ubiquity of Christ's 
glorified body, with Luther,* or deny it with Calvin ;f 
whether we should hold that the elements in the Eu- 
charist contain, and thus convey the Body and Blood 
of Christ, with Luther, ^ or that they represent, but 
do not convey them, with Calvin, § or, that to the 
faithful, they convey^ without containing them, with 
Melancthon, and Bucer, and Peter Martyn ; || 

* Muensch. Dog. Hist. Per. III. par. ii. § 202. 

t Inst. IV. xvii. 30. 

X Muensch. lb. 198. 

§ Muensch. lb. 198. 

|| Mosheim says Melancthon " agreed with Luther in re- 
gard to the Lord's Supper, though he says he wished to use 
ambiguous terms and phrases in regard to it." III. 165. 
But Bucer, son-in-law of Melancthon, affirms the contrary* 
Bayle IV. 190. The doctrine of the Lutherans seemed to 
Bucer to attribute too much [corporeal] reality to the presence 



XOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 77 

whether we should hold to unconditional election, 
with Calvin, * or deny it with Luther ; f whether 
we should hold to universal redemption, with Luther, J 
or deny it with Calvin ; § whether we should pro- 
fess our faith in " one holy Catholic Church," with 
Calvin: || or, in "one Christian Church,"1T with Lu- 
ther ; or whether in the various points of difference, 
we should reject both, and follow the teachings of 
Zuingle.** 

of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he could not 
digest the consequence of it ; but he thought also, that 
the opinion of Zuingle was too narrow, and did not come 
up to the ideas which the Scriptures and ancient tradition 
imprint on our minds." Bayle II. 177. Bucer also, as 
well as his master, Melancthon, was charged by the Calvin- 
ists of employing " ambiguous and obscure phrases in regard 
to it." J. Simber, cited by Hetta— Bayle II. 177. " Peter 
Martyn, conformed himself for some time to Bucer's lan- 
guage," and while " in England was exhorted [by Calvin] to 
speak more fully and clearly concerning the Eucharist." — 
Bayle II. 178. These men were for taking ground, interme- 
diate between the Lutherans and Calvinists, and hence nei- 
ther party could understand them. 

* Inst. III. xxi. § 5, 7. xxv. 12, 14. 

t Moeh. III. 212. 

X Angs. Conf. Art. III. 

§ Inst. III. xxi — xxv. 

|| Inst. IV. i. 2. 

IT .Short Cat. Sec. II. Ans. 3. " Eine heilige Christliche 
Kirche." This is adopted even in Sweden. Wingard, 143. 

** One cannot avoid smiling at the manner in which the 



78 PURITANISM 



LUTHERAN RITES AND CEREMONIES. 

But his remarks on this point, seem to refer 
rather to rites and ceremonies than to doctrines, for 
he says that the English Reformers " were by no 
means of the opinion of some at the present day, that 
all was done, which a regard for purity in worship 
demanded." (p. 54.) Perhaps he would have these 
things conformed to the Lutheran pattern, and 
would have us restore the high altar, and wear the 
embroidered surplice, burn lights upon the altar in 
the communion, use the wafer in its administration,* 
make the sign of the cross in consecrating the el- 
ements, as well as in baptism, have the cross on the 
outside, and in the inside of the Churches, the cru- 
cifix on the altar, chant the Liturgy, pray with the 
back to the people, and bow at the name of Jesus, 
whenever it occurs ; practices which prevail to a 
greater or less degree in all the Lutheran Churches 
to the present day. j* 

names of such " Reformers as Luther, Calvin, and Zuingle" 
are associated by the New Englander, II. 232, as though 
they all taught the same doctrine. 

* This was done in Geneva for a long time — Mas. Vind. by 
Linds. 505. It was abolished in 1623. Spon. Hist. Gen. 373. 
in Bayle III. 343. 

t Hoppu's Sketches, 74, 118. Jarvis' No Union with 
Rome, 13, 21. Pusey Germ. Theol. II. 402. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 79 

OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH REFORMATION (1.) 
THE WORK OF THE STATE. 

But the greatest objection of all, against the Eng- 
lish Reformation, seems to be, that it was the work 
of the " State and not the Church." (pp. 54—62.) 
The articles he confesses w T ere " such as the Reform- 
ers would have them," (p. 58,) but the " Liturgy" 
and " offices" were the work of " the State," (pp. 
58, 62,) and only " so left by the Reformers for the 
present, w r ith the hope of further amendment when 
the time would allow it." (p. 58.) These objections, 
in the mouth of a Romanist, might have some sem- 
blance of intelligent sincerity ; but in an avowed 
champion of the Reformation, they sound strangely 
enough ; for, if the English Reformation is to be 
censured, because the State took an active part 
therein, the German and Swiss must also be placed 
under the ban. Luther gave himself very little 
concern with any thing but doctrine, and it was not 
until the accession of John of Saxony, 1525, that 
any decided measures were taken to organize a dis- 
tinct Church. A confession of faith was drawn up 
by Luther and Melancthon, at the request of the 
Prince, and presented to the Diet at Augsburgh, 
1530, by the Prince and Duke of Saxony, the Earl 
of Bradenburg, the Duke of Lunenburg, the Land- 
grave of Hesse, the Prince of Anhalt, the Senates 
of Nuremburgh, and Reutlingen, — together with a 



80 PURITANISM 

list of " the corruptions of the Catholic Church, 
corrected by the Reformers. "* The same interposi- 
tion of the civil authorities was also practiced in 
Geneva,f Denmark, and Sweden.:): 

GRADUAL IN ITS CHARACTER ; DIFFERENCE OF 
THE ENGLISH AND CONTINENTAL. 

Another fact which our author appears to con- 
sider a serious objection to the English Reformation 
was the gradual and cautious manner in which it 
was conducted. And here it must be confessed, that 
the English and Continental Reformations were con- 
ducted on totally different principles. The English 
Reformation was characterized at every step, by the 
deliberation and inquiry, which should precede any 
change. It was the gradual dawn of the morning 
light upon those who had long been groping in dark- 
ness, but were anxiously looking out for the coming 
day. It was the result of prayerful study, and careful 
research. Nothing was conceded to passion — nothing 
left to chance — nothing rejected that could claim the 
sanction of the Bible and primitive antiquity — no- 
thing retained but what might; and nothing done, but 

* See App. to Am. Ed. of Burnett, on XXIX Articles, 
N. Y. 1842, or Schmucker's « Elements of Popular Theol." 
&c. And. 1843. But the work of Dr. S. does not contain 
the entire confession. 

t Beza's Life of Calvin. 

t Mosheim, B. IV. Cent. XVI. § 1, v. 4. 



NOT GENUINE TROTESTANTISM. 81 

as the laws of the Church Catholic directed.* On 
the contrary, Luther was the creature of circum- 
stances. He believed that he was fighting the 
Lord's battles, and he left the whole direction of 
external matters to the hand of an overruling Provi- 
dence. Deeming himself the mere instrument of a 
higher power, he took no precaution to prevent the 
evils that might result from his own indiscreet or 
misguided actions. f Consequently his views were 

* Prim. Church, 401, and Bar. I. 372. Ogilby's Lec- 
tures on the Church, 133—208. 

t No one can read Scott's Life of Luther, but especially 
D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, without feeling 
this fact in regard to Luther, continually. Having alluded 
to the history of D'Aubigne, it seems to be incumbent on us 
to mention certain circumstances relative to that work, 
which materially detract from its authority. We say nothing 
of the fact, that being a strict Calvinist, the author could 
hardly be expected to enter fully into the views and feelings 
of Luther ; but we allude to the doubtfulness of the claim 
set up in the preface of the book, to originality. The au- 
thor says: " this history has been drawn from original sour- 
ces, with which a long residence in Germany, the Low Coun; 
tries and Switzerland, has made me familiar. Down to this 
time we possess no history of that remarkable period." The 
impression which this language will naturally convey to eve- 
ry reader is entirely erroneous ; for it could only be true of 
the French, (if of them.) that they had no such history; and 
by " original sources," he can mean no more than German 
histories, for a learned German tells us that it is, " in its main 
parts, a skillful working up of German material, especially 



82 rUKiTAXistt 

always more or less one-sided. Taking his stand 
" in the element cf God's unwritten word, and ani- 
mated by the one all regulating principle of justifi- 
cation, he uttered his judgment against certain parts 
of the Canon [of Scripture, the Epi<=tle of St. James, 
and that to the Hebrews,] because they seemed to him 
to be in conflict with that [unwritten] word," — " not 
being able to find in them, his cardinal truth, justifi- 
cation by faith only."* That one idea was the all 
in all with him, and had it not been for the interven- 
tion of the State, and the labors of his friends, Lu- 
theranism would either have had no being at all, or 
have presented a very different character and aspect, 
from what it has hitherto done. 

It was the same one-sided view of things that, 
led Luther to say : " could I, with the writings of 
Moses, the Psalms, Isaiah, have also the same Spi- 
rit* I could then make a New Testament as well as 
the Apostles who wrote it. 5 'y It was the same view 
which led him, in his controvei h the Papacy, 

to rest every thing in the Christian ministry upon 

the History of the Reformation, by Marheinecke, "which 
still remains superior to it in the estimation of all competent 
judges." Schaf.. 166. And Dr. S. adds, "We have been 
really surprised to see how Dr. Merle [D'Aubigne] allows 
himself to plunder German authors ;" which charge lie sus- 
*%TDS by other proofs. 

Schaf. 55. 

Pusey, II. 67, on authority of Bretschneider. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 83 

" internal ordination," a doctrine which, later in 
life, ho abandoned.* 

Hence, also, the seeming inconsistencies in his 
life and writings. One point was pushed to the ex- 
treme, regardless of its bearing upon another, until 
he found his own arguments turned against himself, 
by those who wished to pull down what he was 
building up.f And the history and character of the 
two Churches, have been as different as the means 
of their Reformation were dissimilar. 

DEVELOPMENT OF RITUAL. 

And here it is proper to mention another distin- 
guishing feature of the English Reformation. We 
mean the care taken in developing the ritual as well 
as in settling the doctrinal of religion. All the Re- 
formers agreed, in making doctrine the basis of their 
system.:): But while Luther left the ritual to devel- 
ope itself, as circumstances might call it forth, the 
English Reformers acted upon the principle that it 
should be developed by the Church, as well as in the 
Church. Hence, the ritual was labored with the 
same care as the doctrinal, and the result was, a sys- 
tem that has no equal for its purity of doctrine and 

* Authorities quoted in Moeh. Synb. 392, 393. 
t This was especially true in regard to the Church and the 
ministry. 

X Views Gospel Truth, 91—97. 



84 PURITANISM 

propriety of worship ; a system that has endeared it- 
self to all her children, by its adaptation to the wants 
of their spiritual nature, and commanded the homage 
of the good and the great, of every name and nation, 
for its simplicity, propriety, and beauty. And it is 
no doubt owing, under God, to this close correspon- 
dence of principle and development — of doctrine and 
ritual — that both have been preserved in so much in- 
tegrity and purity, while the other reformed bodies 
have so sadly departed from one or both.* 

The English Reformers agreed, therefore, with 
the Continental, in regarding the doctrinal of reli- 
gion as the basis of their system — in asserting man's 
utter inability, since the fall, to do any thing by which 
to prepare himself for repentance and faith ; and the 
necessity, therefore, of his " gratuitous justification 
for Christ's sake, through faith,"f in making the 
Bible the only sure fountain and certain measure of 
divine truth, in receiving that sense of it, which had 
been apprehended and settled by the Church, and in 
regard to the character of the Church, the divine ap- 

* The Church in Sweden must be excepted from this re- 
mark, which, though strictly Lutheran in doctrine, is Episco- 
pal both in form and fact ; and which has suffered no serious 
inroad from the Rationalism of her German neighbors. Abp. 
Wingard's Church of Christ, 205. Denmark, which is Epis- 
copal in form but not in fact, has been very deeply imbued 
with Rationalistic principles. Wing. 196. 

t This is the language of the Augsburg Confession. Art. 4. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 85 

pointment of the ministry, the nature and design of 
the Sacraments. But they differed from the Conti 
nental, iu regard to the manner in which the conse- 
quences of the fall were effected — as to the manner 
and consequence of man's renewal — as to the orders 
by which the ministry should be perpetuated — as to 
the connection between the doctrinal and ritual o 
religion, and the importance of the proper develop- 
ment of the same. The English Reformation also 
differed from the Continental, in the means by which 
it was effected? and the manner of its accomplish- 
ment,* and consequently has been widely different 
from the others, both in its character and results. 

ITS CANONICAL CHARACTER. 

There is another circumstance connected with 
the English Reformation, which our author affects to 
treat with contempt, but which, nevertheless, is de- 
serving of careful consideration. The author of the. 
" Primitive Church," had attempted to show, (c. 29,) 
that the English Reformation was Canonical, inas- 
much as no change was made, either in doctrine or 
discipline, without the consent of clergy and laity, 
according to the requirements of the law of the 
Church Catholic, while the retrogression made by 
Mary, was uncanonical, being done in violation of 
those Canons. But, without any attempt at disprov- 

* Sweden is an exception ; Denmark partially so. 



86 PURITANISM 

ing the facts or principles there stated, our author 
sneers at the idea of a Canonical Reformation under 
Edward and Elizabeth, and in the same breath as- 
serts, that " Mary too, made a Canonical Reforma- 
tion, when she carried the Reformation back to 
Rome." (pp. 272 — 274.) The most favorable con- 
struction which charity can put upon this conduct, is, 
to suppose him ignorant of the meaning of the word 
" Canonical," as used by historians and Canonists. 
But however much Puritanism may affect to despise 
this feature of the English Reformation, no man can 
disregard it, who enters into the views of the Re- 
formers themselves, Continental as well as English, 
in regard to the Church. No right-minded man 
will be willing, for any slight cause, to break away 
from the life of the Church, and cast himself, a lone 
and withered branch , upon the bleak and barren hills 
of sin and death. And no man who understands 
the history of the Church, will think lightly of a 
" Canonical Reformation." 

PURITANISM HAS CHANGED, NOT WE. 

This brief survey of the Reformation, is sufficient 
to demonstrate that on all the points upon which we 
are charged with having departed from the faith of 
the Reformers, it is Puritanism that has changed, 
and not we ; that all those points of doctrine which 
were held in common at that time, are held by us 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 87 

now, and that the discipline of which our author 
complains, is, by his own confession, a faithful and 
honest carrying out of the principles which the Re- 
formers established.* On the other hand, it is no 
less evident, that while Puritanism has retained 
substantially the same form of discipline as that es- 
tablished by the Genevan Reformers, it has departed 
from the doctrines of the Reformation, until it has 
scarcely a point in common with the Protestantism 
of the Reformers themselves. Under these circum- 
stances, no one can hesitate to say, that Puritanism 
is not geunine Protestantism. 

BOASTS OF HAVING CHANGED. 

Indeed in the same breath in which Puritanism 
charges us with having departed from the principles 

* We do not say, the " principles of the Reformers/'' 
but, " the principles which the Reformers established ;" 
for, our author holds that the public documents set forth 
by those men, with the single exception of the XXXIX Ar- 
ticles, do not express their sentiments, nor set forth their 
principles. Our author's account of the origin of our Prayer- 
Book, is a real curiosity. He tells us, that "the offices of 
the Prayer-Book, (p. 58,) all but the Articles, were "framed 
from the old Mass books," (p. 60,) by " the State, and not 
the Church," (p. 62,) for the express purpose of " keeping 
Papists in the Church," (pp. 58, 78.) Hence he says, 
" its origin was neither divine nor ecclesiastical," (p. 62 ;) 
and he adopts the language of another, who said, " It was 
but an ill-mumbled mass," (p. 58.) Any other feeling than 
that of pity towards such a man, is impossible. 



88 PURITANISM 

of the Reformers, it boasts of doing the same thing 
itself. Thus our author, speaking of Wickliffe, says ; 
"With the Bible in his hand, and taking that alone 
for his guide, he advanced further into the field of 
Apostolic truth and order, than Luther and his im- 
mediate coadjutors. He reached hold on results, 
which after a lapse of centuries, and after an age of 
suffering and research, the Providence of God un- 
folded once more to the eyes of the Puritans." (p. 
29.) And the New Englander, the avowed and ac- 
knowledged organ of the latest form of New Cal- 
vanistic Puritanism, said in 1844 : " Notwithstand- 
ing their [the Reformers'] wisdom and piety and 
zeal, there was some serious defects in their man- 

ner of conducting the controversy of their age 

We can conduct the Reformation of our times to an 
issue more glorious and enduring than was even 
anticipated by the Reformers of the sixteenth cen- 
tury. ' ? * With two years more of development and 
it says : " The great battle for religious liberty is 
yet to be fought. The idea of religious liberty — 
which is yet to be the great idea of our age — has 
yet been but slowly developed. The Reformers 
did not possess it. Even the Puritans did not fully 
grasp it, if we except him who does not need a statue, 
because he would not wear a crown ; whose truest, 



New Eng. II. 232. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 89 

noblest title is the Man, — Oliver Cromwell."* 
And yet for us to doubt the perfection of that work, 

* New Eng. IV. 418. This application of that name 
to Cromwell, which has been applied to Christ alone, and 
which is true of him alone, is in good keeping with our 
author's appropriation of the epithet of " the Great Repub- 
lican" applied to our Lord by the infidel De La Mennais. 
If tliis be not the spirit of Rationalism, it is the spirit of infi- 
delity. 

The history of Puritanism it is not now our present pur- 
pose to consider ; but we cannot forbear an apt quotation 
from a learned and impartial writer — neither Puritan nor 
Churchman ; we quote from a Discourse delivered before 
the Historical Society of Philadelphia, Feb. 21, 1842, 
by Job R. Tyson, Esq., one of the Vice-Presidents. He 
says, — " Cromwell, who, with many points of greatness, 
was an usurper and a tyrant — not satisfied with an untin- 
selled Protectorate, sighed for the pomp and glitter of a 

regal sceptre Subsequent events prove, 

that the voice of the people was as effectually drowned by 
the din of arms, when Cromwell rose to the supreme power, 
as that of justice had been stopped, in the solemn mockery 
of the monarch's trial." — p. 17. 

We add another extract, from a stanch Puritan, relating 
to the same period- — the late Noah Webster, Esq., LL.D # 
" To be a tyrant with any tolerable degree of safety, a man 
must be possessed of the confidence of the people. Charles I. 
of England, extended the royal prerogative to an unwarrant- 
able length — and lost his head ; but that prince could not 
have sent a detachment of three hundred men, to drive the 
Commons of England from their hall, and have effected his 
purpose. That act of despotism was reserved for the repub- 
5* 



90 PURITANISM 

is to abandon all truth, to become semi-papists at 
once. Proh pudor ! 

our author's view of antiquity. (1.) Iren^us. 

After the specimens we have had, of our author's 
intelligence and candor, it can hardly be necessary 
for us to add more. But as he has attempted to dis- 
cuss the question of the Church on the ground of 
antiquity, it seems to be proper to examine his 
qualifications for the task, as exhibited in the work 
before us. His first attempt is on p. 275, where 
this passage occurs, as his first quotation from the 
Fathers of the " second and third centuries ;" given 
to show how far they had departed already from his 
draught of the Apostolic model. " Thus Irenaeus 
says, 8 Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there 
also let the people be.'" There is no reference to 
the place where this language occurs, and we can 
find no such passage in Irenaeus ; though there is 
just such a passage in the Epistle of Ignatius to the 
Smyrneans, c. 8. Again on the same page, we 
find his second quotation reading thus : — " The 
same Father says, ' See that ye follow your Bishop, 
even as God the Father ! ' " Nor is there any refer- 
ence to the place where this occurs, nor can we find 
any such passage as this in Irenaeus ; though there 

lican Cromwell — the friend of the people /" — Orat. 4th July, 
1802, p. 23. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 91 

is one in Ignatius which seems to have been the 
original. It occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
(c. 6.) out of which it was manufactured, and 
reads thus : " See that ye follow your Bishop, as 
Jesus Christ the Father." The original, there- 
fore, is an exhortation to follow the Bishop as 
Christ followed the Father, not to follow the 
Bishop as though he were God. Then follow two 
genuine quotations from Ignatius, properly ascribed 
to him, placed there apparently with the supposition 
that Irenseus preceded Ignatius. And this is ren- 
dered probable, by the fact, that on p. 339, he 
says that Ignatius " comes too late by a whole hun- 
dred years" to testify of the primitive Church. We 
could hardly conceive of a writer of Mr. Hall's 
apparent reading, so ignorant as not to know that 
Ignatius was the disciple of St. John, that he was 
for many years cotemporary with him, and died only 
seven years after that Apostle. Nor can we imagine 
how he came to put the language of Ignatius into 
the mouth of Irenssus, nor how he could make such 
an egregious blunder, as to enthrone the Bishop in 
the place of God ; unless he has been led into the 
error by quoting second hand, from untrustworthy 
sources. Indeed, it must be perfectly evident, to 
every one, at all conversant with the Fathers, that 
our author has no personal acquaintance with the 
writings of the primitive Christians. 



92 PURITANISM 



(2.) CLEMENT OF ROME. 

Another example of his acquaintance with the 
Fathers occurs on p. 334. When speaking of 
Clement of Rome, he says, in his Epistle to the 
Corinthians "he uses the words Pastors and Bishops 
repeatedly, and throughout as synonymous." What 
he means by "repeatedly," we know not, as we 
recollect no instance where the word "Pastor" 
occurs in the Epistle ; and the word Episcopus, 
(Bishop^) is found only three times, and that in a 
single sentence. In one instance it cannot signify 
"Bishop" in the official sense, and we have shown 
in another place, that there is no probability he 
intended to use it so in the other two cases.* He 
then proceeds to quote the address of the Epistle, 
and follows it by the forty -second chapter, as though 
it were the beginning of the Epistle. He also tells 
us that Clement " uses the words Bishop and Pres- 
byter as synonymous," (p. 325,) but he has offered 
no proof of the assertion, and we know of none that 
could be offered.*)* 

* Prim. Church. 226. 

t On pp. 336, 337, our author charges upon Perceval, in 
his work on the Apostolical Succession, with " barefaced 
trickery," — with a " piece of arrant fraud," — -for quot'ng a 
passage from Clement of Rome, in which he speaks of the 
High Priest, the Priest, and the Levites, as indicating that 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 93 

Our author supposes that the work of Clement is 
of paramount authority among the Fathers, because ; 

there were then three orders in the Christian ministry ; and 
very charitably imagines that the author of the " Primitive 
Church " has " stumbled into this ditch dug by Perceval ;" 
for he " cannot for one moment suppose, that he knowingly 
concurs in so gross a piece of deception." But our author 
is too charitable in this respect, as he is unjust in charging 
the Primitive Church with omitting certain testimony of 
Clement. He can hardly be ignorant of what Beveridge 
said as early as A. D. 1690, (Cod. Can. II. xi. 9.) inasmuch 
as he tells us that he has " searched very extensively into 
the standard writings of Prelacy," (p. 285.) After two 
quotations, in which he (Beveridge) thinks a distinction is 
clearly made between the "Propositus and Presbyters," he 
says: " In another place he intimates that the same three 
distinct Grders of the sacred ministry are established in the 
Christian Church, equally with the Jewish." Then quoting 
the passage in question, he goes on to say: "Who can 
doubt, that before these words were written, the distinction 
of orders in the ministry had been as certainly established 
in the Christian ministry, as in the Jewish." Nor ought he 
to be ignorant that the Rev. Dr. Learning quotes the same 
passage, in the same way, for the same purpose as Perceval, 
in a work published in 1766, (Defence of Episcopacy ;) or, 
that the same sense has been given to it, from that day to 
this. That there are some difficulties attending the language 
of Clement, is granted : but we cannot admit the Presby- 
terian construction of his language ; because, (1.) it sup- 
poses him to be guilty of the absurdity of talking to the 
Gentile converts, as though they were Jews ; (2.) because it 
makes him guilty of misinterpreting Scripture, when nothing 



94 PURITANISM 

" it is not two centuries since it was dug up from 
the dust, after having been lost and unknown for a 
thousand years ;"* for he supposes " that oblivion 
was its protection from the mutilations, the changes, 
and interpolations, which were inextricably mingled 

is to be gained by it ; and (3.) it makes him speak of things 
past, in the present time. The hypothesis of the Primitive 
Church makes Clement consistent with himself, and intelli- 
gible to others — which no other has been able to do. 

But, as our author rejects the interpretation of the Primi- 
tive Church, we wish to inquire whether he believes Clement 
understood Is. lx. 17, to which he refers, as describing the 
names of offices in the Christian Church ? If so, will he tell us 
why Clement did not quote the passage as it reads — not 
substituting Episcopous, and diacouous, for archontas, and 
Episcopos ? According to our interpretation, Clement 
merely referred to the passage, as proof of a principle, and 
gave the sense, without regard to the words. According to 
the Presbyterian interpretation, Clement first mis-quoted the 
passage, and then mis-interpreted it. Is this representation 
of Clement's proceeding, to be regarded as a specimen of 
Puritan exegesis ; for it is only by this double perversion, that 
he can be made a Puritan authority ? 

* An accurate man would not have spoken as Mr. Hall 
has done. The Epistle of Clement was certainly known 
to Photious, as late as 850, and was published at Oxford 
in 1633. The two dates, it will be seen, are not more than 
" a thousand years " apart, while the last was more than 
"two hundred years ago." There are no terms which a 
Christian gentleman may use, descriptive of our author's 
mode of treating primitive antiquity, especially on pp. 253 
—256. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 95 

up with such works as monks and priests were able 
to lay their hands upon," (p. 253.) One would natu- 
rally expect from this account of the matter, that the 
Bible, which was in the keeping of the " monks and 
priests," and who were almost its sole copyists, would 
be the most corrupt of all. But whatever this argu- 
ment proves for the Epistle of Clement, it proves 
just the same for the shorter Epistles of Ignatius, 
which were for a long time in the same predicament. 

(3.) JUSTIN MARTYR, POLYCARP, IGNATIUS. 

Again, it would be a hopeless task for any one 
to attempt to find the language attributed to Justin 
Martyr, on p. 338, and none but those familiar with 
the writings of that Father could guess what was 
the original of which the statement was manufac- 
tured. His remarks on Polycarp,* (p. 338,) and 
Irenseus, (pp. 343, 344,) are the old Presbyterian 

* The assertion which our author makes upon the probable 
supervision of Polycarp, over the Church at Philippi, (p 338,) 
is more than uncandid. He says, the author of the Primitive 
Church " conjectures" that the Bishop of Philippi is dead ; 
and " conjectures" that " Polycarp had been invited to take 
the provisional oversight over them, though no history shows 
it, and Polycarp does not intimate any such thing." Yet 
the whole argument of the Primitive Church actually turns 
upon Polycarp's own language. Whatever Mr. Hall might 
think of the strength of the argument, he could not fairly 
and honestly use the language he has, 



96 PURITANISM 

argument, reasserted as though it was entirely new 
with him, and without any notice of its repeated re- 
futation. His view of the testimony of Ignatius, 
(p. 343,) by which he makes the Presbyters, suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, will be as new to most of his 
readers, as it would have been to Ignatius himself;* 

* The representation of our author in regard to the mode 
suggested in the Primitive Church, for ascertaining the true 
text of Ignatius, (p. 340,) is as uncandid as it is unscholarlike. 
The suggestion was not the hypothesis of the author of 
the Primitive Church, but of a German historian, not even 
of the orthodox school ; and what is there given, is not the 
conjectural, but the " certain text." But it was as far as 
possible from our author's representation of it. The idea of 
collating " interpolated and altered copies with forged ones," 
for the purpose of ascertaining the genuine text of an author, 
is worthy only of its real paternity, and must be classed 
among the " Curiosities of Literature." The alleged " ana- 
chronisms and absurdities" contained in those Epistles, we 
confess ourselves unable to discover. We have read them 
carefully — weighed every word and syllable contained in 
them — and the internal evidence alone would leave no 
doubt on our mind, that they must have been written by 
a person situated as Ignatius was, and that they could not 
have been written at any later age than the second century. 
Who those " deeply learned " persons are, of whom our 
author speaks, that " do not hesitate to pronounce them for- 
geries," he does not tell us ; and Coleman, who appears 
to be his authority, mentions but one man, and that man 
is an Unitarian. Of those who have rejected these Epistles, 
we know of no one who was not in reality a Socinian, or an 
opponent of Episcopal government. In conclusion, we com- 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 97 

as new as it was to us to hear that St. James the 
Greater was ever supposed to be Bishop of Jerusa- 
lem, as our author informs us, p. 314.* 

(4.) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 

The representation given of the testimony of Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, (p. 344,) may also be classed 
among the " Curiosities of Literature." Clement, 
in speaking of the true Gnostic, or model Christian, 
says : "There are two kinds of servicef paid 
to men ; one emendatory, as the medicaj art to 
the body, — philosophy, to the soul ; the other minis- 
terial, as that paid by children to parents, and sub- 
jects to rulers. In like manner, in the Church, the 

mend to our author's attention, the following opinion of Leslie : 
" It is impossible for any, not prejudiced against all convic- 
tion, to read the Epistles of St. Ignatius, and to doubt any 
longer that Episcopacy was the government of the Church 
at that time." — (Letter to Parker, inserted in the Preface 
of his translation of Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 4to. Lond. 1729.) 

* A slight acquaintance with the history of the Church, 
would have shown our author, that though St. James the 
Greater was not himself Bishop of Jerusalem, he was one 
of the consecrators of James the Just, being assisted by 
St. Peter and St. John. — (Euseb. Ecc. Hist. ii. 1. 23. Prim. 
Church, 185, 277.) 

t The Greek word is 6s/>at^s;st, which may signify the 
act of serving, worshipping, or healing. See Kay's Clem. 
Alex. 205. 



98 PURITANISM 

Presbyters perform the emendatory, the Deacons 
the ministerial office. The angels minister in both 
capacities to God in the dispensation connected 
with earthly things ; and the Gnostic does the same, 
ministering to God, and exhibiting to men an 
emendatory contemplation."* Oar author renders 
therapeia, by " orders in the ministry," cuts off the 
beginning and omits the end of the passage, and 
renders the remainder thus : "just so in the Church, 
the Presbyters are entrusted with the dignified min- 
istry, the Deacons with the subordinate, "f And 
hence he infers that there were but " two orders in 
the ministry," notwithstanding Clement had said 
in the preceding book : "For the degree (7rpaK07rai, 
literally progressions,) in the Church, of Bishops, 
Presbyters, and Deacons are imitations of the angelic 
glory, and the economy of their dispensations."^: 
And this is all the evidence he could find to sustain 
the assertion that " Clement repeatedly shows that 
as yet there are properly but two orders in the min- 
istry." (p. 344.) One can hardly help smiling at 
his rendering of Prokatliedria^ in this connection, 
— the "first seat in the Presbytery," and in truth, 
our author himself seems to be ashamed of it, for he 

* Strom, vii. 700, 701, and Kay's Clem. Alex. 205. 

t We imagine this blunder is not original with our author, 
as the language seems to be copied from another writer on 
the same subject, without credit. 

X Strom, vi. 667. 6 Protokathedrial Strom, vii. 667. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 99 

credits it to Coleman, from whom he copied what 
precedes, without credit. 

(5.) JEWELL AND STILLINGFLEE T. 

Again, the passages quoted from Jewell and Stil- 
lingfleet, (pp. 381, 382,) display the same want of 
acquaintance with the history and Fathers of the 
Church. Our author quotes a passage from Jewell, 
in which the argument turns upon the authority 
of a book now acknowledged on all hands to be a 
forgery, without seeming to be aware of the facts, 
and another from Stillingfleet's Irenicum, which 
shows " the youth and want of due consideration," 
of the author, being a total misapprehension of the 
sense of a passage in book third, chapter four, of 
Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History. These examples 
must suffice to show our author's qualifications for 
discussing any question touching the early Church, 
and the dependence to be placed upon his conclu- 
sions. Indeed, it has never fallen to our lot, to pe- 
ruse a work making so much display of proof, which 
had so little that was pertinent to the real points at 
issue, or, that, while making great pretensions to 
accuracy, manifested such a glaring want of ac- 
quaintance with original sources. 

OUR AUTHOR'S VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE. (1.) SCHISM. 

But though our author neither understands the prin- 
ciples of the Reformers, nor the history of the early 



100 PURITANISM 

Church, it may he supposed that he will be at home in 
the Bible, since the Bible alone is his professed stand- 
ard. A few examples will enable us to see. One of 
his earliest attempts at exegesis, is found in his view of 
the Scriptural doctrine of schism. With him, schism 
is a not " splitting, rendering, and dividing " of the 
body of Christ, according to the original meaning 
and ordinary use of the word ; but " internal dissen- 
sion, within the bosom of the same Church." (p. 279) 
" Dissension," according to our author's interpreta- 
tion, is schism, but not disunion and separation. 
" Breaking away from the customs or rule of the 
Catholic Church," is not schism. Refusing " con- 
formity to a National Church," is not schism. " De- 
parting from the authority of a Diocesan Bishop," is 
not schism, (p. 270.) But sharp and earnest discus- 
sion of doctrine, such as we have in the Episcopal 
Church, is schism, because it does not produce di- 
vision, (p. 280.)* 

* Our author quotes (p. 271,) what he is pleased to call 
" a remarkable concession," from a letter of the present au- 
thor to a parishioner, on the subject of joining in " Sectarian 
Worship." And yet he cannot think it a " concession." He 
ought to know that it is a principle with Churchmen, and 
hence they do not hesitate to avow the belief, that " if we 
have no more Scripture warrant than other denominations, 
we are guilty of schism." This was claimed by the early 
Congregationalists, and conceded by the early Churchmen 
of Connecticut, as one may see by looking into the contro- 
versies of that period. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 101 

(2.) THE INCESTUOUS CORINTHIAN. 

Again, on p. 297, speaking of the case of the 
incestuous Corinthian, he says that St. Paul's deci- 
sion was not a " sentence," not a judgment, in a 
"judicial sense," but a mere "laying down the 
law." But Professor Robinson, among other signi- 
fications, defines the original word (xpiva,) " to judge, 
in a judicial sense," and refers to this very passage 
as one of the places where it has this sense.* 

(3.) our lord's language at the last supper. 

Again, on p. 352, he calls the interpretation given 
to Luke xxii. 29, by the author of the " Primitive 
Church," (p. 173,) "a monstrous claim," beyond 
which " the horrid impieties of Popery could go to 
no greater length of extravagance." He objects 
that our Lord did not make over to his Apostles, 
" as by demise or bequest, the kingdom which the 
Father had appointed or committed to him." And 
yet that is the meaning given to the original word 
by Professor Robinson. He objects that they were 
not to " sit on thrones, as the emblems of power," 
though Robinson says "as the emblem of regal 

* Our author's comment on the argument of the Primi- 
tive Church is pointless, as St. Paul's " sentence" was a 
judgment passed upon a case of " conceded facts," not of 
mere suspicion. 



102 PURITAXIS3I 

authority." He objects also that the language does 
not signify "judging, in a judicial sense ;" though 
this is the precise language of Robinson, in refer- 
ence to this very place. And finally he objects that 
it cannot mean as we suppose, because " there is 
no transferring of Christ's kingly power, and no 
allusion to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
contained in it at all." (p. 353.) He then proposes to 
give " the whole passage," in its connection, begin- 
ning just at the place where it was requisite to keep 
out of sight, the most important fact that it was part of 
the address of our Lord to his Apostles at that sacred 
Supper, In lieu of this he gives us the meager and 
lifeless interpretation of the Rationalistic Rosen- 
muller : and the exalted language of that solemn 
occasion is degraded to such unmeaning jargon as 
this : " As my Father hath appointed me a kingdom 
to be acquired by endurance of adversities : so I 
appoint you a glory like unto royal majesty, to be 
acquired in a similar way"* 

* We might naturally infer, from our author's treatment 
of Scripture, that his sympathies would be with the Rational- 
izing theologians of Germany ; but we were not prepared 
to find him adopting the opinions of so thorough -going a 
Neologist as Rosenmuller, on such a topic as this. Those 
who wish to know the character of the doctrinal theology 
of this commentator, may consult the Biblical Repository , III. 
213—215, or Home's Introd. Bib. Ap. IV. Par. ii. c. 4. An 
estimate of the man's works by a German, may be found 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 103 



(4.) ORDINATION OF TIMOTHY. 

Again, on p. 324, he says " the criticism about 
meia and dia (juLtrot and hot) [adopted in the Primi- 
tive Church] is both erroneous and contemptible," 
and so " thoroughly exposed by Dr. J. M. Mason, 
that it was forty years ere Episcopacy ventured to 
revive it again." But it is the language of Profes- 
sor Robinson, quoted verbatim from his Greek Lex- 
icon of the New Testament ; a work which we are 
surprised our author should hold in such light es- 
teem.* 

(5.) ANDRONICHUS AND JUNTA. 

Again, on p. 317, he says that " Junia," men- 
tioned with Andronicus, Rom. xvi. 7, as one of the 
Apostles, or of note among the Apostles, " was be- 
in Hengstenberg on the Authenticity of the Pentateuch, 
Bib. Rep. XL 425—429 ; XII. 484, 485. The Rev. Dr. 
Nevins says, in a work which has been received since this 
Review was put to press, " Who now, of any true theological 
culture, thinks of taking the Rosenmullers, &c. for his guide 
in the study of the Scriptures ?" — Mystical Presence, 146. 

* Professor Robinson also gives the very sense to dia, 
in Acts ii. 5, 15, 22,23,43; iv. 16; xii. 9, etc.; and to 
meta. in Acts xiv. 27, (the passages referred to by Dr. Ma- 
son.) and at which he, and our author after him, sneers so 
contemptuously. We commend to his attention on this 
point, Stuart's Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, 



104 PURITANISM 

yond all proper question a woman ;" and quotes 
Rosenmuller in proof. But Luther and Calvin both 
read Juntas, and of course considered it the name of 
a man. So did Hammond, and so do Professors 
Stuart and Robinson. But Hall tells us that 
" Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several other 
Fathers . . . take Junia for a woman." (p. 317.) 
But he forgot to mention that they changed the 
name to Julia, before supposing it to be feminine.* 

(6.) ORDINATION OF TITUS. 

Another specimen of our author's exegesis and 
logic, is found in Titus i. 5, " and ordain elders in 
every city." (p. 321.) In order to show that the 
word used " in the original has no possible reference 
to any ceremony or mode of ordination," which 
no one ever supposed or pretended, he tells his 
readers, that it is the same word, " as that used in 
the passage ' by one man's disobedience many were 
made sinners.'" (Rom. v. 19.) Then follows this 
piece of Puritan Rationalism. " There is no more 

§§ 84, 149 ; Buttman's Greek Grammar, § 147 ; and Hist. 
and Crit. View of Ind. Eur op. Cases. (Quar. Chris. Spec.) 
IX. 115, 426. It would not be necessary to tell most theo- 
logians that the primary signification of the words is not 
the same, nor that no word can signify two different things, 
when the same subject is viewed under the same aspect. 
* Wells' Vindication, p. 67, on the authority of Blondel. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 105 

reference to a mystic ceremony of ordination in the 
case of Titus, than there is of a mystic ordination to 
make men sinners." This citation of Rom. v. 19, 
as evidence of our author's own view of Titus I. 
5, is a very good illustration of his own remark, 
(p. 390,) that " pernicious doctrines, like other ra- 
venous beasts of prey, are not wont to go solitary." 
He adopts low notions of man's primitive state, low 
notions of the consequences of the fall, and then 
follows, necessarily, low notions of the necessity of 
the ministry, and consequently, of the ministry itself.* 
These must be sufficient as specimens of our 
author's treatment of Scripture. But there is one 
topic connected with the present point of inquiry too 
important to be passed without notice. Puritanism 
claims to be in an especial manner the champion of 
the Bible. Its watchword is, the Bible, the whole 
Bible, and nothing but the Bible ; and our author 
has been careful to reiterate it continually, as though 
fearful that it might be forgotten. And yet on nearly 
every point of dispute between us, Puritanism does 
not take the Bible in its plain, literal sense ; it does 

* Our author's grammar is in good keeping with his logic. 
Though the word in both passages is a verb from the same 
root, it is not in the same mood and tense, nor subject to the 
same construction, nor expressive of the same sense. The 
parallel passages are Luke xii. 14; Acts vii. 10, 27,35; 
Heb. vii. 28 ; from which any reader may satisfy himself of 
the meaning of the word in Tit. i. 5. 



106 PURITANISM 

not allow the Bible to interpret itself.* On the con- 
trary, it insists upon interpreting the obvious mean- 

* Our author does not seem to understand what the Re- 
formers meant by the Bible's being the source and measure 
of saving truth, nor in what sense they regarded it as the 
" Rule of Faith," (which, by the way, was not their mode 
of describing it,) nor how it is to be its own interpreter, as 
his whole chapter on " The Rule and Judge of Faith," 
abundantly shows. The motto of the Reformers was, " Scrip- 
ture, its own interpreter." But how its own interpreter? 
It could not be so, in any reasonable sense, unless the ex- 
pression was understood to embrace the religious, the histo- 
rical, and the grammatical elements. If the Bible is to be 
understood from itself alone, the reader must possess a mind 
kindred to its Author — must have a nice discrimination of 
the language he employed — and be able to transport himself 
into the writer's stand-point, so as to be able to view things 
in the same order, connection, and relation, in which the 
writer viewed them. It was a strong sense of the import- 
ance of the religious element, that led Luther to say, " Had 
I as much of the Holy Spirit as St. John, I could write 
such a Gospel." — (Quoted in Pusey, II. 67.) And a strong 
sense of the importance of the grammatical element, that 
led him to say, " The best grammarian is the best theo- 
logian." — (Titt. Syn. N. T. 3.) It was also a strong sense 
of the value and importance of the historical element, that 
led them to appeal to antiquity, and the judgment of the 
Catholic Church. This appeal was no idle declamation, 
as may be seen in the works of Melancthon, and his disciple, 
Chemnitz. When our author comes to understand the views 
and principles of the Reformers on this subject, he will not 
accuse us of having departed, from them, 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 107 

ing of the language out of it, before it is willing to 
receive it ; and that upon the very points where our 
author charges us with "monstrous or inexcusable 
perversion of the words of Holy Writ," (p, 335,) 
with " anti- scriptural " and "horrid" impiety (pp. 
276, 356,) we follow the plain literal sense of the 
Bible, which Puritanism rejects. The chief points 
of difference are the five following. The others are 
incidental to these. 

(1.) THE CHURCH. 

We suppose that the body of Christ, which is 
the Church spoken of by St. Paul in his Epistles, 
especially to the Ephesians and Colossians, in 
which there is " one Lord, one faith, one baptism," 
to which he gave some Apostles, and some Pro- 
phets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and 
Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the 
work of the ministry, [i. e. of reconciliation,] for 
the edifying of the body of Christ," and for which 
he " gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse 
it by the washing of water,"* to be the Church 
to which these very Epistles are addressed, ac- 

* This " washing of water," we understand literally, and 
suppose it to refer to baptism. And so Robinson, Gr. Lex. 
487, refers it to the same ; and Calvin does the same, Inst. 
IV. v. 2 ; and Luther also, Larger Catech.; but our author 
can do no such thing. 



108 PURITANISM 

cording to the plain and obvious meaning of the 
Apostle's language. But our author says no, that 
the Apostle meant no such thing, that he was talk- 
ing of some " invisible Church," (p. 280,) though 
the Apostle himself has been careful not to intimate 
any such thing, and seems to have had no know- 
ledge of any thing of the kind, in the modern Puri- 
tan sense of the term. 

(2.) BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 

We suppose that when our Saviour said : " Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can- 
not enter into the kingdom of God," he meant to 
be understood just as he said, and that he referred 
to that new birth by water which we receive in 
baptism,* and we know no right to separate it from 
the new birth by the Spirit. We also suppose that 
when St. Paul spoke of " the washing of regenera- 
tion, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," he 
referred to baptism, and that we have no right to 
separate it from the renewal by the Holy Ghost.*(" 

* " The Fathers of the Church," says Tholuck, " and 
after them the interpreters of the Roman and Lutheran 
Churches, almost universally take v$up here in the sense of 
Christian Baptism only : and this, in fact, is the sense which 
most readily offers itself to the reader." — Com. on John hi. 5. 

tSo Luther understood this passage. — Short Cat. and 
Calv. Inst. IV. xv< 2. But our author, of course, rejects this 
view. Tholuck speaks of the " intimate connection in which 
baptism and regeneration are generally placed in the New 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 109 

But Puritanism, as we shall see, regards this as 
fundamental apostacy. 

(3.) THE REAL PRESENCE. 

We suppose that when our Saviour said : " Ex- 
cept ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink 
his blood, ye have no life in you," and when he said 
of the Holy Eucharist, " This is my body, and this 
is my blood," that he meant precisely what he said, 
and that he intended to teach a real presence in the 
Eucharist, and a real participation of that divine life 
which dwells in his glorified nature.* But Puri- 
tanism, as we shall see, can find no words sufficient- 
ly strong to express its abhorrence of this literal 
meaning of our Lord's language. 

Testament— Eph. v. 26 ; 1 Pet. iii. 21 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; Com. 
John iii. 5. And yet our author says, (p. 373,) that Paul 
" makes a distinction heaven-wide, between baptism and 
regeneration." All of the foregoing passages are quoted 
by Luther in his Catechisms, and Calvin in his Institutes, 
as referring to baptism ; and are referred to in Heidelberg 
Catechism, the common symbol of the Dutch and German 
Reformed Churches. 

* So taught Luther, Short Cat. c. 5. Appendix, quest. 
13—20; and Calvin, Inst. IV. xvii. 5—10; and the Re- 
formed Heid. Cat., quest. 75 — 79. It is immaterial for ou 
present purpose, whether we consider John vi. as spoken 
directly of the Eucharist, as many commentators have done 
from the earliest times, (Thol. on John vi. 51,) or as includ- 
ing it as the general includes the particular. 



110 PURITANISM 

(4.) OF THE MINISTRY. 

We suppose, that when the Apostle said, that 
" the ministry of reconciliation " had been given to 
them, and that " the word of reconciliation " had 
been committed to them, and when in pursuance of 
that ministry, they said ; " Now then we are am- 
bassadors for Christ ; as though God did beseech 
you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye 
reconciled to God," he meant just what his language 
seems to signify; that they were the personal repre- 
sentatives of Christ, charged with the important 
mission of reconciling sinners to God ; that their 
office was in fact, " ministerial intervention, that 
sins might be forgiven," through the conjoined opera- 
tion of the word and sacrament. But our author 
recognizes no difference between the " ministry" 
and the " word of reconciliation,"* (p. 373,) and 
denies that the ministry acts as Christ's " personal 
representatives."! (pp. 302, 303.) 

* Tittman (Syn. N. T. 179—182,) has well shown, what 
no competent writer ever doubted, that the fiu&ovietv ths 
KcLra,K\a,y>is, and xoyov ths KctTAWetyncy are distinct things; 
and also, what many have overlooked, that the " SIclkcviclv 
nm$ KATdLXXiiyiis is not the office of teaching the doctrine of 
the remission of sins ; but [that] it is the office itself, .... 
the office of effecting the KATuKKctyn; :" the office of recon- 
ciling sinners to God. 

t For the opinions of the Reformers on this point, see 
ante. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. Ill 

(5.) OF ABSOLUTION. 

We suppose, that when our Lord said to his 
Apostles; "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, 
they are retained," that he meant precisely what 
he said, and that he thereby gave to his ministers 
the power of absolving repenting sinners.* But 
our author condemns this opinion as the "wildness 
of fanaticism, the depths of delusion, the ravings of 
madness.''' (p. 370.) 

(6.) OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

We suppose that when our Lord said to his 
Apostles : "Lo I am with you always, even unto 
the end of the world," that he meant just what his 
language imports ; that he would be with them, and 
those who succeeded them in their office, unto the 
end of the world. But our author says, that "this 
doctrine of Apostolical succession is, as to its very 
basis, fundamentally contradictory, both to Scripture 
and to reason ; that the dogma upon which it is 
built, is subversive of the true gospel, the funda- 
mental dogma of popery," (p. 372,) "as a doctrine, 
unfounded in Scripture, and contradictory to it . . . 
as a fact, ten thousand times over a falsehood." 
(p. 389.) 

* For the opinions of the Reformers on this point, see 
ante, 



112 PURITANISM 

There is one point, however, on which Puritan- 
ism follows the literal language of Scripture ; and 
thus our author quotes, (p. 256,) with characteristic 
exultation, the passage (Ps. cxix. 100,) " I have more 
understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimo- 
nies are my meditation. I have more understand- 
ing than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." 
When, therefore, we tell them, in the language of 
the Psalmist, (xiii. 15,) that in speaking thus "they 
offend the generation of God's children," and that it 
is our duty to " stand in the ways and see, and ask 
for the old paths, where is the good way, that we 
may walk therein," (Jer. vi. 16,) and that we ought 
to follow that tradition which we have from the 
Apostles, — they reply, in the language of certain 
men who lived in the days of Irenseus, " that they 
are wiser than, not only the ancients, but the Apos- 
tles also." — (Adv. Hser. iii. 2.) 

It will be seen from the foregoing, that upon every 
one of the great points touching the Church, the Min- 
istry, Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, 
and Absolution, and against which our author in- 
veighs with so much bitterness, we hold to the plain 
and literal import of Holy Writ, from which Puritan- 
ism has, in every instance departed ; and that, for 
doing the very thing which Puritanism boasts of do- 
ing itself, we are denounced in the most unmeasured 
terms, and every epithet which the odium theologicum 
can command, is bestowed upon us without reserve. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 113 

Our Church* is an " usurper and schismatic," (p. 
264,) guilty of "horrible usurpation and tyranny, 
of the grossest tyranny, of insult to God, and outrage 
upon the dearest rights of man," (p. 266,) "of crim- 
inal usurpation" (p. 269,) that our teaching in re- 
gard to schism " lays Christianity on the altar, a 
scacrifice to prelacy, — putting Christ's laws and 
the people beneath the feet of the prelates," — "that 
it is anti-christian ; a part of the mystery of ini- 
quity;" (p. 276,) that we would erect "a Holy Al- 
liance to dethrone the Lord Jesus Christ 

and to throw down the Bible from the altar of God," 
(p. 278,) that we have " subverted the very genius 
and spirit of the polity of the Christian Church," 
(p. 301,) that we assert the " dreary principles of 
spiritual despotism," (p. 308,) "the beggarly ali- 

* Her theologians are treated in a similar manner. Rev. 
Dr. Jarvis is guilty of " folly and superstition," (p. 273 ;) 
Rev. Dr. Hawks, of " usurpation and perversion," (p. 298 ;) 
the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Perceval, of " arrant fraud and 
barefaced trickery," (pp. 336, 351 ;) and Mr. Chapin 
"stumbles into the ditch dug by Perceval" (p. 337.) The 
Rev. Dr. Coit is especially the object of his hate, (pp. 411 — 
440,) because of the unpleasant truths brought to light 
by his work on Puritanism. The task of Dr. Coit was an 
unpleasant one ; but it was due to truth and history to exe- 
cute it ; and he deserves the thanks of every truth-loving 
historian for the able and thorough manner in which he has 
performed it, whether approving of all the language em- 
ployed or not. 

6* 



114 PURITANISM 

ments of superstition," (p. 307,) that our claims 
are " worse than simple error ; they are injurious to 
Christ, and subversive of the entire truth of the 
Gospel," (p. 350,) guilty of monstrous and inexcusa- 
ble perversion of the words of Holy Writ," (p. 355,) 
urging " unscriptural and horrid ideas," (356,) that 
" we have an abundance of Popelings, but scarcely in 
all, one decent Pope," (p. 357,) that "there is nothing 
in Popery more destructive to truth, to freedom, and 
to true religion, more arrogant, more impious toward 
God, or more injurious to man," (358,) that our sys- 
tem " is essentially the system of Popery," " a pes- 
tilent superstition ; the sum and essence of the great 
anti- Christian apostacy of Rome," beyond which no 
"wildness of fanaticism," no "depths of delusion," 
no "ravings of madness," can go. (p. 370.) 

THE SINCERITY OF THIS DESCRIPTION. 

Such are some of the choice epithets bestowed 
upon us by the author of The Puritans and their 
Principles, for accepting the literal sense of Scrip- 
ture, and holding firmly to the principles of the Re- 
formers; and they leave no doubt of our author's 
descent or his principles. Indeed, the work in ques- 
tion, is one of the best illustrations of Puritanism we 
have seen in a long time ; its recklessness of asser- 
tion, and its bitterness of spirit, are genuine marks 
of its paternity. Yet one hardly knows whether to 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 115 

attribute such language to ignorance, or uncharita- 
bleness, or to both. That any intelligent man, in 
his sober senses, can believe one-half that our author 
has imputed to the system of the Church, is incon- 
ceivable.* It is impossible to believe, that he really 
supposes that such a system was set forth by Cran- 
mer, and Ridley, and Latimer, and held by such 
men as Bull, and Butler, and Beveridge, and Bram- 
hall, and Howe, and Hooker, and Hammond, and 
Heber, and Jebb, and Kenn, and Leslie, and Nelson, 
and Pearson, and Taylor, and Wall, and Wilson ; 
or that he supposes that it was of such a system, that 
such men as James Angell James, and Henry Cooke, 
and J. W. Morgan, and Robert Hall, and Richard 
Watson, and Adam Clarke, and Albert Barnes, and 
Leonard Bacon, have spoken in terms of high com- 
mendation ; unless we also suppose, that knowledge 
is alone with our author, and that wisdom will die 
with him.f 

* We can conceive of no more deliberate and wilful mis- 
representation (charity requires no milder language,) than 
that which says, that the Church teaches that we " cannot 
be justified by faith alone ;" that we " must have the help 
of a human priesthood, with its valid sacraments, or you can- 
not be saved." — (p. 373.) 

t For the languages of these and other prominent dissent- 
ers, see The State of Religion in England and Germany 
compared, 12 — 24. 



116 PURITANISM 



THE FANCIED RESULT, 



But whether these men were right or wrong, 
w r hether they understood whereof they affirmed or 
not, is now no matter of consequence ; as the ob- 
ject of their hopes and their wishes, of their joy and 
their praise, is no more. Our author has seen, to 
copy his chaste and classic style, " the mighty fabric 
of Episcopacy tumble to the ground," (p. 321,) he 
has seen Prelacy die, " though in the last ditch," 
(p. 325,) and nothing now remains but to sing the 
requiem of its departed greatness. Yea more than 
this, he has discovered that this " mighty fabric " 
was no fabric at ail; he has searched, he says, 
" clear down through the Scriptures, and found not 
a trace or fragment of Episcopacy," (p. 333,) he 
has followed, he says, " the pretensions of Prelacy 
to her haunts and strongholds, in the deep-tangled 
wild-wood of the Fathers," (p. 333,) in search of 
Bishops, but they were so " very noiseless and shy, 
that nobody [in the second century,] seemed to know 
any thing about them, and no footstep or trace is 
left either of their name or existence," (p. 339c) and 
that what has heretofore been considered by the 
greatest and best of men, as conclusive evidence on 
the subject, turns out to be no more than " a few 
.arrant perversions, and some two or three chains of 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 117 

modern guesses." (339.) All labor and controversy 
must therefore be at an end. Our author has 
swept away " the claims of prelacy, as with the 
besom of destruction;" (p. 349.) and the truth, we 
are told, now " stands forth clear, consistent and uni- 
form, affording no manner of support to the Episco- 
pal claims." (p. 349.) And now, since the accom- 
plishment of such a feat, our author can well afford 
to compose himself to rest, beneath his towering 
laurels, sure of an immortality not unlike that of the 
knight of La Mancha, because of some of his famous 
exploits. But we advise him to drink deep at the 
fountain of Lethe, lest the airy monster should after 
all prove to be something more substantial than the 
baseless fabric of a vision, rising Phoenix-like, and 
invigorated by its conflict, should again afflict his 
waking hours, and nightly dreams, to the dissipation 
of all his fancied greatness. 

GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE WORK. 

We have now gone over with so much of our 
author's work, as properly belongs to our present 
inquiry. Not that we have exposed all his mis- 
takes and errors ; but that we have considered all 
the leading points which he has made, the character 
of the evidence which he employs, and his mode of 
using it, and have thereby been able to form a proper 
estimate of its accuracy and value. To do more 



118 PURITANISM 

than this, to follow him through the whole volume, 
and point out every mistake, and correct every error, 
would require a volume as large as the work itself. 
This w T ill be apparent from a statement of those cha- 
racteristic features of the work which must be obvi- 
ous to all familiar with the subject. These are, — 
ignorance of original sources of information in regard 
to the topics discussed ; — ignorance of the character 
of authorities employed, and want of fairness in 
using them ; — ignorance or misrepresentation of 
the real sentiments of those he is opposing; — un- 
scrupulous assertion unsustained by proof on the 
most important points in dispute ; — concealment of 
the place where his authority is found when proof 
is attempted ;— quoting second-hand from books he 
has never seen, without acknowledging the inter- 
mediate source ; — appeals to passion, prejudice, and 
ignorance, with an utter disregard of the rights and 
feelings of others. To point out every departure from 
truth and propriety in such a work, and correct every 
misrepresentation, would be as tedious as useless. 
For those who understand the subject, no answer at 
all is required. Those who do not already under- 
stand it thoroughly, and wish to see it proved more in 
detail, will find the materials for so doing, in the au- 
thorities indicated in the margin of this review. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 119 



HISTORY OF PURITANISM. 

Of the general history of Puritanism we have 
said nothing, partly, because it does not fall within 
the scope of our present inquiry ; and partly, because 
that subject has been so thoroughly discussed of late, 
especially by the Rev. Dr. Coit, that it is unneces- 
sary. Our object has been to examine the claims 
of Puritanism to be the genuine representative of the 
Reformation ; and to show that its charges against 
us of having departed from the principles of the Re- 
formers, are based upon its own deviations from, 
and ignorance of those principles. There are, how- 
ever, a few points, relative to Puritanism and Epis- 
copacy in Connecticut, not elsewhere fully explained, 
and not well understood, which seem to require a 
brief notice. 

TOLERATION GRANTED TO EPISCOPALIANS \ OUR 
author's ACCOUNT. 

This is a point on which our author dwells with 
peculiar delight, in order to show the superiority of 
the Puritans over all other nations and sects ; and he 
gives a brief synopsis of history in proof of his posi- 
tion. His statement of the case is this. " The first 
Episcopal church in Connecticut, was established 
in 1723. It was only four years from this period, 
before a law of the Colony provided, that whatever 



120 PURITANISM 

tax was paid for the support of religion by any per- 
son belonging to, and worshipping with an Episco- 
pal church, it should be paid over to the clergyman 
of the Church of England upon whose ministry such 
person should attend. Those who conformed to 
the Church of England, were authorized to tax them- 
selves for the support of their clergy, and were ex- 
cused from all taxes for building meeting-houses, 
and for other purposes of the Churches of the pre- 
vailing denomination. This relaxation in the laws, 
made so soon after dissent assumed a regular form, 
and probably on its first application to the Legisla- 
ture for relief, shows that there prevailed in Connec- 
ticut, at the time, no serious disposition to persecute 
or oppress the people of other denominations."* (p. 
402.) In order to obtain a just view of this evi- 
dence, we must consider the history of the law of 
1727, and the practice of the Colony under it. 

EXEMPLIFIED AT STRATFORD. 

The Parish of Stratford was first duly organized 
about 1708, and the Rev. Mr. Muirson appointed mis- 

* This same story is told in pretty much the same way, by 
the Rev. Dr. Bacon, in his Review of Colton on the Religious 
State of the Country.— Quar. Chris. Spec. VIII. 495—499. 
Also, by Prof. Kingsley, in his Historical Discourse on 
the 200th Anniversary of the Settlement of New-Haven. — 
Note I, 94 — 98, from which our author has copied his 
account. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 121 

sionary there. But he died before entering upon 
his duties.* After the organization of the parish, 
the members thereof objected to paying taxes to the 
Congregationalists, on the ground that they were 
legally exempt by the laws of England ; and upon 
their refusal, Timothy Titherten, one of the church- 
wardens, and John Marey, one of the Vestrymen, 
were arrested about midnight, December 12, 1780, 
and compelled to walk eight miles to jail, where 
they were confined without fire or light, until they 
paid the sums demanded. Again, on the 14th of 
January, 1709, David Shelton, William Rawlinson, 
and Archibald Dunlap, were arrested on the same 
ground, and taken to jail. On the way there, Shelton 
begged permission to stop and warm himself at a 
house on the road, and not being quick enough to 
satisfy his keepers, was taken and laid across the 
back of a horse, and so carried. These also paid 
the sums demanded, on condition that the money 
should remain in the hands of the Lieutenant- 



* The spirit of the Puritans at Stratford may be inferred 
from a single fact. Not long after the death of the Rev. 
Mr. Muirson, Isaac Nell, one of the Churchwardens there — 
a man of unblameable conversation — also died, whereupon 
some doggrel verses were written and circulated there, hav- 
ing these lines — 

"Isaac Nell is gone to hell, 

To tell Mr. Muirson that his Cbureh is well," 



122 PURITANISM. 

Governor, subject to the order of the next General 
Court of the Colony. Several other persons also 
paid such taxes, on similar conditions, and the pro- 
perty of others was sold at auction to pay them. But 
no order could be obtained. During the year 1709, 
William James, who had been appointed an Agent 
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts, went to a town meeting in Stratford, where 
such taxes were to be levied, and for himsell and 
fellow-members of the Church of England, and in 
behalf of the Society in England, protested against 
being thus taxed, and asked to have the protest re- 
corded, which was refused. Again, in May, 1710, 
the said James, as Agent of the said Society, pre- 
sented a petition to the General Court at Hartford, 
to be relieved from taxes, and to have the money in 
the hands of the Lieuienant- Governor disposed of, 
but without any effect. Our author, therefore, is 
mistaken by several years, both as to the time of 
the formation of the parish, and also as to the time 
of the first application to the Legislature for relief. 
The effect of this persecution was, to drive a large 
share of the Churchmen from Stratford, and the 
parish remained without a resident clergymen until 
1722. This year the Rev. Mr. Pigot was sent 
there as a missionary, and a house of worship was 
built the year following. Mr. Pigot was succeeded 
by Rev. Samuel Johnson, in 1723. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 123 



AT FAIRFIELD ; LAW OF 1727. 

In 1725, a parish was formed, and a house of wor- 
ship built at Fairfield, and the same course of levying 
on property of Churchmen, and selling at the post 
to pay the salaries of the Congregationalist ministers, 
was also pursued there. 

In May, 1727, "Moses Ward," one of the War- 
dens of the parish of Fairfield, together " with the 
other Wardens, Vestrymen, and brethren " of that 
parish, presented a memorial to the Colonial Legis- 
lature, setting forth, that they were a legally organ- 
ized Society, under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London, and bound by obligations to the Honorable 
Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 
to sustain public worship according to the rites of 
the Church of England ; but that, notwithstanding 
this, taxes had been levied upon them, and their 
property taken and sold; praying that the money 
which had been taken thus illegally from them, might 
be returned. At the same time reminding the Legis- 
lature what a hardship the Puritans had regarded it, 
when obliged to pay taxes to the Church of England. 

The officers of the Church appeared before the 
Legislature by attorney, and declared their intention 
to prosecute the thing to effect. They proposed, how- 
ever, to withdraw their memorial, and to renounce 
all claim upon the money, if the Legislature would 



124 PURITAXISM 

release them from all future claims of the kind. In 
the meantime, the opinion of the King's Attorney- 
General, and of the Bishop of London, against the 
legality of the Congregrational establishment, had 
been obtained. Under these circumstances, the 
General Court of the Colony passed a law in May, 
1727, permitting the taxes of such members of the 
Church of England as belonged to a parish having 
a resident clergyman " in Orders," to be paid to 
such clergyman ; the taxes, until 1746, being levied, 
however, by the whole town ; after that by the Con- 
gregationalists alone.* The members of such 
parishes were also exempt from taxes to build 
"meeting-houses," and allowed to tax themselves 
for the support of a clergyman. This history of the 
law will enable any one to see what " disposition " 
the Puritans of Connecticut entertained towards 
those of other denominations. The practice under 
it will confirm this conclusion. 

* The letter of this law was most rigidly enforced ; and 
no Parish was allowed the benefits of it unless they had, at 
the time, a resident clergyman " in orders ;" and the spirit 
of it was continually evaded by Puritan contrivance. This 
was done in two ways : in one case the General Court levied 
a Colonial tax, which was to be paid by all persons ; and 
then the taxes of certain towns were given directly to the 
Congregational Society. In the other case, the Colonial 
taxes of the Congregationalists in a particular town were 
abated, while Churchmen were required to pay them. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 125 



PRACTICE UNDER THAT LAW. (1.) GREENWICH. 

Ill October, 1738, the Churchmen of Greenwich 
and Horseneck, being members of a Church of 
England parish, adjoining them, in the Colony of 
New- York, petitioned the General Court to be al- 
lowed the benefit of the law of 1727, but were re- 
fused, because they had no resident minister in their 
own town, notwithstanding our author's assertion to 
the contrary. 

(2.) SIMSBURY. 

In May, 1742, the parish of Simsbury, being duly 
organized, and having a regular Catechist appointed 
by the Society in England, but no clergyman " in 
orders," and then erecting a church, petitioned the 
General Court to be allowed the benefit of the law 
of 1727, but were refused, and were compelled not 
only to pay the ministerial tax, but also a tax for 
building a " meeting-house." A similar petition 
was presented to the same body in May, 1743, with 
the same result. 



(3.) WATERBURY. 

In October, 1744, the parish of Waterbury peti- 
tioned the General Court for liberty to tax its own 



128 PURITANISM 

members, for building a church, but were denied the 
liberty, although our author tells, "they were al- 
lowed to tax themselves." 



(4.) READING. 

In October, 1745, the Parish of Reading petitioned 
the General Court to have certain taxes remitted, 
which had then been remitted to the Congregation- 
alists in that place for fourteen years, but no action 
could be obtained. Three years after they petition- 
ed again, when the prayer of the petition was re- 
jected.* 

* The public taxes of all the Congregationalists of Read- 
ing were remitted by the Court of Connecticut, for more 
than twenty years, for the purpose of enabling them the 
better to support the Congregational Ministry among them. 
This was a very common practice, being done in many 
towns. In other instances, money was actually appropriated 
out of the public treasury for that purpose. Thus in May, 
1734, the General Court appropriated two hundred pounds 
(,£200) to the Congregational Society in West Haven, for 
the same purpose, the reason assigned being the declaration 
of Mr. Arnold, their Minister, for Episcopacy — his prede- 
cessor, Mr. Johnson, having done the same. In October, 
1736, the General Court appropriated forty pounds (£40) 
a year for four years, to the same parish, for the same 
purpose ; and in May, 1737, authorized them to sell fifty 
acres of public lands for the purpose of a parsonage. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 127 



(5.) CHURCHMEN EXCLUDED FROM BENEFITS OF 
PUBLIC ACTS. 

In October, 1748, a public Act was passed direct- 
ing how houses for public worship should be built, 
from the benefits of which Churchmen were ex- 
cepted.* 

(6.) CHURCHMEN NOT ALLOWED TO TAX THEM- 
SELVES. 

In October, 1749, the Churchmen in the State 

generally, petitioned the General Court for liberty to 

tax themselves, for all purposes touching public 

worship. The petition was continued to the next 

. session, and then, " given the go-by." 

In May, 1752, a similar petition was presented 
to the same body, for the same purpose, which passed 
the " Lower House," but in the " Upper House," 
continued to October. In October it passed the 
"Lower House " again, but was rejected in the 
"Upper House." 

In May, 1759, the Parish of Simsbury petitioned 
the General Court for liberty to tax its own mem- 
bers, which was denied. 

* The words of the law are, " those, only tolerated by 
the laws of this colony, and dissenting from us, excepted." 
This use of the word " tolerate," enables us to understand 
what the Puritans meant by toleration ; to wit, liberty to 
live in a country, without enjoying its privileges, 



128 PURITANISM 



TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. 

These facts in regard to the 'practice of the Con- 
necticut Puritans under the law of 1727, will enable 
all to see the spirit with which the law was passed, 
and what might have been expected, had nothing 
but Puritan sense of justice been concerned in it.* 
It should also be remarked, that a few years after 
the law of 1727, (May, 1746,) an act was passed, 
prohibiting those who were exempt from paying 
taxes to the established order from voting, when 
taxes for ecclesiastical purposes were levied. The 
practical effect of these laws was, that when the 
Congregationalists taxed themselves they taxed every 
body else also, though none but their own order were 
allowed to vote ; and this taxation without represen- 
tation^ was practised by the Puritans upon all other 
denominations until the Revolution."!* 

* In " The Connecticut Dissenters' Strong Box," publish- 
ed in 1802, we find this comment upon the effect of Mr. 
Ward's petition. " The hierarchy [of Connecticut] cried 
aloud, • religion is in danger ! ' But the British Lion growled 
and the petition was granted, though not without more ifs, 
and ands, if so be, provided that, and so forth, than were 
ever interlarded into the fable of the lawyer's bull and farm- 
er's ox."— pp. 28, 29. 

t This was precisely what the Puritans objected to in the 
English Parliament, at the very moment they were doing it 
themselves, and for which they revolted. " Great Britain," 



NOT GENUINE TROTESTANTISM. 129 

POLITICAL TENDENCIES OUR AUTHOR'S VIEW. 

This is a subject upon which our author dwells 
with much apparent delight, and he seems to ima- 
gine that here, in particular, the glory of Puritanism 
is manifested. He tells us, with no small exulta- 
tion, that " Prelacy, as a system, is naturally, and 
ever has been, hostile to civil liberty ; [and that] 
the principles of Puritanism and civil liberty rose 
and flourished together." — (p. 401.) Again he 
says, (p. 407,) " The present entire equality of all 
sects of worshippers, which characterizes our Amer- 
ican institutions, was as sure to result from these 
principles [i. e. of Puritanism] as the sun is to break 
through the shadows of a misty morning." And 
much more, to the same effect, is scattered through 
the whole book. 

RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE COLONIES. 

It is not our intention, however, to write the his- 
tory of either party ; but we cannot refrain from re- 
ferring our author to a careful inquiry into the Ori- 
gin and Progress of Popular Liberty, published in 
volume II. of the New-York Review, where he will 

says John Adams, " concocted the plan of raising 

a revenue within the Colonies, by authority of Parliament, 
for the avowed or pretended purpose of protecting, securing, 
and defending them." — Letter of John Adams to Dr. Cal- 
koen, of Amsterdam, October 4, 1780. 
7 



130 PUEITANISM 

find that the principles of our institutions had their 
origin centuries before Puritanism was thought of. 
We must also remark, in passing, that if these prin- 
ciples had resulted from Puritanism, we should have 
expected to have seen the results first when Puritan- 
ism itself prevailed. Yet history does not confirm 
this supposition. Puritan Massachusetts, and Puri- 
tan Connecticut, had their religious establishments. 
But Roman Catholic Maryland never had any, nor 
any test acts, except in the time of Cromwell.* 
Quaker Pennsylvania never had any.f Baptist 
Rhode -Island never had any 4 Episcopal and 
Dutch Reformed New- York never had any.§ Epis- 
copal South-Carolina, and Presbyterian New-Jer- 
sey never had any.|| Episcopal Virginia once had 
an establishment, but it was given up in 1785. IF 
The principle of a religious establishment was first 

* Pitkin's Hist. U. S., I. 56, 57. Tyson's Hist. Disc. 37 



t Tyson 41—50. 

t Calender's Hist. Disc. 103, 104. See also Laws of 
1647, in Hist. Col. R- I. IV. 229. 

§ " The Highflying Churchman stript of his legal robe," 
p. 7. That the cases of Presbyterian suffering, to which our 
author refers, in New- York, must be received with many 
grains of allowance, it would be easy to show, were it within 
the province of our inquiry. 

|| lb. p. 7. Pit. Hist. U. S. I. 59. 

IT Hawk's Hist. Church Virg. 175, 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 131 

given up in Connecticut in 1818, and in Massachu- 
setts in 1834.* It would seem, therefore, that the 
Principles of Puritanism flourished better among 
Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, Quakers 
and Presbyterians, than among the real Congrega- 
tional Puritans. Indeed one cannot avoid the con- 
clusion drawn by Mr. Tyson,")" that " it may be 
doubted, if all the Colonies had been peopled by 
men of similar views and policy with those of New- 
England, whether the angelic form of religious free- 
dom, now our presiding and guarding genius, had 
ever descended to crown the happiness, or bless the 
social charities of the present United States."^: 

* Wingard, 155. 
t His. Disc. 50. 

X Those who wish to see Puritan ideas of freedom, as ex- 
emplified in Connecticut, not towards the " minor sects," but 
towards each other, should read the History of Congregation- 
alism in Hartford, from 1650 to 1664, (Trumb. I. 296—213,) 
of Rev. Philemon Robbins, of Branford, and of the whole 
period from 1730 to 1748, (Trumb. II. 134—164,) and of 
the great " Walling ford case," 1758 to 1765 — (Trumb. II. 
480 — 526.) After the New Church had been organized by 
the Association in Wallingford, and a new house commenced, 
the builders were retarded for some time by the opposition of 
the members of the old society, who drove off the workmen . 
so that, literally, they fought with clubs over the sills of the 
new meeting-house. Seventy years after this, the house and 
land for which this new society contended became the prop- 
erty of the Episcopal church in that place, — the present 



1 32 PURITANISM 

REV. DR. BACON'S VIEW. 

We have seen that the ecclesiastical establish- 
ment of Connecticut was only completely set aside 
in 1818, and we propose to inquire into the history 
of that event ; or in other words, how the revolu- 
tion of that period came to take place. Rev. Dr. 
Bacon, hi his review of Colton. eays that it was 
the Congregationalists that made it, because they 
were the majority ; that all the minor sects united, 
were but a fraction of the people of Connecticut." 
The comparative numbers of the "minor sects," 
and the " standing order," are not here fairly repre- 
sented ; but, as that is nothing to our present pur- 
pose, we let it pass, and proceed to consider the real 
history of that occurrence."!* 

church standing on the same premises as the old " Well's 
Meeting-house." 

* Quar. Chris. Spec. VIII. 500— 503." 

t Dr. Bacon's authority in that article, for the early statis- 
tics of Churchmen in Connecticut, and for the manner in 
which the "minor sects" were treated, was a manuscript 
from the pen of Rev. Dr. Goodrich, of Durham. Those 
papers now turn out to be part of the documents prepared by 
that " Convention" of Presbyterian and Congregational min- 
isters, who, from 1766 to 1775, were fomenting difficulties, 
in order to be sent to London to prevent the introduction of 
Bishops here. One of the means was, to appoint a commit- 
tee to " obtain all the instances of Episcopal oppression they 
could in Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, and the Carolinas" — 



NOT GENUINE PR0TESTANTIS3I. 133 

EPISCOPALIANS SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT. 

The Episcopalians of Connecticut had, from the 
very first, gone upon the principle of yielding obe- 
dience to the laws under which they lived. They 
did this before the Revolution, the great body of 
them did it during the Revolution, and they did it 
universally after the Revolution. Consequently, 
when the Democratic party arose in the United 
States, they remained true to the government of 
their own State, which v. as decidedly a Federal 
State. During the harsh political conflicts between 
Democratic and Federal Congregaticnalists, and 
between all the other parties that arose in opposi- 
tion to the State government, Churchmen remained 
true to the government. This state of things re- 
mained until 1814. 

SEASONS OF WITHDRAWING IT IN CONNECTICUT. 

In the spring of this year, (1814.) a petition was 
presented to the Legislature at Hartford, asking for 
a charter of a bank, with a capital stock of a mil- 
lion and a half of dollars, for which they proposed 
to pay a bonus of sixty thousand dollars, which was 

(Min. Conv. 29.) The whole number of Episcopalians in 
the state, was estimated by that Convention, in 1774, at 
9,966, (p. 63.) which was probably less than half of the real 
number, as in 1784 we find Bishop Seabury estimating them 
at 20,000. 



134 PURITANISM 

to be given, if the Legislature saw fit, to Yale Col- 
lege, the Medical College, and the Bishop's Fund. 
This petition passed the lower house, but was 
rejected in the upper. Some time after, a charter 
substantially like the one asked for passed both 
houses, requiring a bonus of fifty thousand dollars. 
At the same session, twenty thousand dollars of the 
bonus was granted to the Medical College. The 
upper house also voted ten thousand dollars to the 
Bishop's Fund, which was refused by the lower 
house. In the fall of the same year, a similar ap- 
propriation was made in the upper house, but lost in 
the lower. A similar vote passed the upper house 
in the spring of 1815, but was again lost in the 
lower house. In the fall of the same year the upper 
house wheeled about, and voted down the appropria- 
tion by the same majority which they had given 
before in its favor. 

CHARACTER OF THOSE REASONS. 

Now, it must be borne in mind, that the lower 
house, which uniformly voted against the ten thou- 
sand dollars for the Bishop's Fund, did, in the first 
instance, pass a charter, which made a similar ap- 
propriation for the same purpose. At the same 
session both houses voted twenty thousand dollars 
to the Medical College, " in pursuance of the Act 
incorporating the Phoenix Bank ;" and the upper 
house voted ten thousand dollars to the Bishop's 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 135 

Fund, at three consecutive sessions, upon the same 
principle. The grounds upon which the claim of 
the Episcopalians was put off in the lower house, 
was, at first, that the country was at war, and the 
funds of the treasury low. After the peace, when 
this ground could be urged no longer, they told 
Churchmen in plain terms that they should not have 
the money. 

ORIGIN OF THE TOLERATION PARTY. 

Thus, money which had been paid into the State 
treasury, in a great measure by Churchmen, with 
an implied condition that a portion of it should be 
applied to the Bishop's Fund, the right to which had 
been three times directly acknowledged by the up- 
per house, and indirectly, twice by the lower house, 
was withheld from those to whom it justly belonged, 
in a manner directly calculated to rouse every spark 
of indignation which might be lurking in their bo- 
soms. This course of duplicity was ably exposed 
by a writer in the Connecticut Herald, published at 
New-Haven, soon after the rising of the Assembly, 
under the significant name of Toleration, which 
from that moment became the title and watchword 
of a party. 

SUCCESS NEW CONSTITUTION. 

And now the whole body of Episcopalians, who 
had heretofore submitted to all the impositions of 



136 PURITANISM 

the standing order, disgusted with the treatment 
their petitions had received, and goaded by those 
who had refused them justice, felt called upon, in 
self-defence, to assert their rights against the gov- 
ernment. Consequently, in 1816, they formed a 
new party, called the Toleration Party, which re- 
ceived so many accessions frcm the Baptists, Me- 
thodists, and Democratic Congregationalists,* as to 

* Those only who lived at the time, or have carefully stu- 
died the history of New-England, from 1796 to 1818, can 
imagine how ready they would be to do this. The case of a 
single individual must suffice as an example and illustration 
of the spirit of that period. The Rev. Stanley Griswold, a 
Congregational minister of New-Milford, embraced demo- 
cratic sentiments, and immediately his character became 
suspicious, and stories of every sort were reported concerning 
him. In 1797, those brethren who composed the Associa- 
tion of the south part of Litchfield county, secretly concocted 
charges against him, and without any previous steps of dis- 
cipline, and without ever intimating to him that they had 
aught against him, arraigned him before their own body, to 
answer to charges, of which he was wholly ignorant until the 
service of the citation, about three weeks before the trial. 
Mr. G. denied the propriety of their course, and their juris- 
diction in the case, but sent to the Association a written an- 
swer to the charges against him. This letter the Associa- 
tion refused to receive, returned without opening it, and pro- 
ceeded to vote him out of their body, without hearing or trial, 
with the full knowledge that his defence was within their 
reach, and against the solemn protest of the church and con- 
gregation against the doings of that body. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 187 

constitute the majority in 1817 ; and in 1818 a Con- 
vention was called to frame a Constitution, in which 
were some of the most prominent Episcopalians in 
the State. The instrument drawn up by that body 
separated entirely Church and State, abolishing the 
last relic of a religious establishment.* When it 
was presented to the people, it received the votes of 
every Episcopalian but two that voted on the sub- 
ject.")* We see, therefore, that Dr. Bacon's state- 
ment, that the Congregationalists made that change, 
must be received with many qualifications. 

CONNECTICUT " BLUE LAWS " OUR AUTHOR^ 

ACCOUNT. 

The subject of the " Blue Laws," is one on 
which our author is particularly sensitive. Thus, 
he says, (p. 17,) "How many people in these Uni- 
ted States, and even here in our midst, confidently 
believe that the famous code entitled Blue Laics of 
Connecticut, once had a place among the statutes 
of this Colony. Yet our fathers knew nothing 
about them. They are a sheer fabrication, for 



* This constitution separated entirely the legislative, exe- 
ecutive, and judicial departments of government, and created 
the first independent judiciary in Connecticut. 

* So the author was told many years since, by the late 
Burrage Beach, Esq., of Cheshire, who was one of the two 
that voted against it. 

7* 



138 PURITANISM 

which the world is indebted to Peters' History of 
Connecticut, the work of an Episcopal clergyman." 
And again, (p. 406,) "They talk about that mass of 
impudent forgeries so often set forth, and so exten- 
sively believed — the ' Connecticut Blue Laws ' — 
just as though the code set forth under that name 
had once a real existence, as a part of the Connecti- 
cut laws. The wonder is, that the very name of 
Blue Laws does not blister the tongue of every Pre- 
latist, when he remembers the origin of that lying 
history, in which the code of Blue Laws had their 
first introduction into the world,"* 

HIS DESCRIPTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PETERS. 

One who understands the facts in regard to this 
subject, cannot help pitying the man's ignorance, 
and smiling at his folly. In the first place, the 
" code " of laws published under the title of " Blue 
Laws of Connecticut," " were nothing more than 
the early laws of Connecticut, and which did not 
contain a single law known anciently as a Blue 
Law."*)" And that " code," instead of being the 
"fabrication of an Episcopal clergyman," was com- 
piled by a Congregational layman. In the next 
place, the " Blue Laws " published by Peters, ac- 

» 
* An account somewhat similar to this is given by Profes- 
sor Kingsley, Hist. Disc. 104 — 108. 
t Pref. vii. Hinman's Blue Laws. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 139 

cording to his own account of the matter, were 
never digested into a "code," and "were never suf- 
fered to be printed."* Now, New-Haven was first 
settled in 1638, and the first code of laws published 
by the Colony, was that of Governor Eaton, in 
1656. Of course the account of Peters must be 
limited to these eighteen years, from 1638 to 1656. 
The synopsis which he gives, and gives, too, from 
memory, includes forty-five brief heads, one-fourth 
of which are merely political regulations, and such 
as are not ordinarily placed upon the statute book, 
most of which are known to have existed at New- 
Haven. Another quarter of these, are substantially 
the same as the enactments of Gov. Eaton's code of 
1656. One-half the laws which Peters gives, there- 
fore, are faithful representations of the regulations 
of the New-Haven Colony, at that early period. 
Some other regulations, similar to those described 
by Peters, must have existed at that time, as is evi- 
dent from the judicial records of the Colony. So 
much for this " mass of impudent forgeries," which 
" ought to blister the tongue of any Preiatist." 

ARE MUCH OLDER THAN THE TIME OF PETERS. 

But our author seems to know as little of the his- 
iory as of the character of the " Blue Laws." He 
supposes them to have been "the fabrication" of 

* Pet. His. 97. 



140 PURITAXISM 

Peters, and to have "had their first introduction 
into the world " in his " lying history." The first 
edition of Peters' History of Connecticut was pub- 
lished in England, in 1781. Consequently, if our 
author's history be true, no one could have heard of 
the " Blue Laws " before 1781. And yet the Hon. 
William Smith, who was graduated at Yale College 
in 1745, thirty -six years before the publication of 
Peters, says, that when he visited New-Haven, as 
one of the Commissaries from New- York, in 1767, 
fourteen years before the publication of Peters, he 
requested to see the " Blue Laws," and that instead 
of finding them to "consist of many large volumes," 
as they had been represented, " a parchment cover- 
ed book, of demi-royal paper, was handed him for 
the laws asked for, as the only volume in the office 
passing under this title."* This testimony to the 
belief in the existence of these laws, near half a 
century before the time of Peters, and that of a man 
w T ho had lived some time in New-Haven itself, may 
possibly serve to relieve Churchmen from the odium 
of participating with Peters in the sin of their " fab- 
rication." What gave rise to the story of the " Blue 
Laws," no one can now tell ; but one thing is per- 
fectly certain, that Churchmen had nothing to do 

* How onr author could be ignorant of these facts, if he 
consulted the books he quotes, it is difficult to imagine. See 
N. Y> Hist Col. Vol. IV. in King. 105. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. l4l 

with " fabricating " either the laws, or the story of 
their existence. If our author should be visited 
with the judgments be would invoke upon Church- 
men, he will receive our pity, although it might re- 
lieve us for a time from his abusive slanders. 

U THE TABLES TURNED" EPISCOPACY IN VIRGINIA. 

Our author has a section with this emphatic head- 
ing, " The Tables Turned," in which he attempts 
to show, that when "American Prelacy " " had the 
power," she was even less tolerant than the Puri- 
tans. His first evidence is, that in 1618 a law was 
enacted in Virginia, requiring every one to attend 
church on Sundays and Holy Days, or " to lie neck 
and heels one night," or be " a slave to the Colony 
a week;" for a second offence a month ; and for a 
third a year and a day. But it does not appear that 
this law applied to any but Churchmen. His sec- 
ond is, that in 1642 a law was enacted, forbidding 
any but Episcopal clergy officiating in the Colony, 
(p. 403,) while Presbyterianism, as our author tells 
us, first appeared in Virginia a century after, in 
1743. Its first preacher was a Mr. Robinson, whose 
labors, our author says, produced many inquirers. 
He then proceeds — " The celebrated Messrs. Ten- 
nent and Finley, obtaining license of the Governor, 
began to preach to those inquirers in 1745." — (p. 
403.) Here, then, was the intolerance of Episcopal 
Virginia — no Presbyterian minister could officiate 



142 PURITANISM 

there without license. And this only two years 
after the passage of the obnoxious law. Let us see 
how these same men fared in Puritan Connecticut. 

CONNECTICUT AND VIRGINIA— MR. FINLEY. 

In 1739, a portion of the Congregational Society 
In Milford, withdrew, and forming themselves into 
a Presbyterian Society, procured this same Mr. 
Finley to preach to them ; for which, in 1740, he 
was arrested, tried, found guilty of vagrancy, and 
transported, as a vagrant, from town to town, until 
he was out of the limits of the Colony. He peti- 
tioned the Legislature for redress, but it would not 
listen to his petition. He went from Puritan Con- 
necticut, branded as a vagrant, to Episcopal Vir- 
ginia, where he was received as a minister, licensed, 
and permitted to preach unmolested.* 

PENNSYLVANIA AND VIRGINIA — -MR. TENNENT. 

The same Mr. Tennent visited Connecticut in 
1749, but confining himself entirely to those towns 
where he was invited by the " New Light " minis- 
ters of the " standing order," the "orthodox " Puri- 
tans were unable to lay their hands upon him.f 

t Trumb. II. 177. Allen's Biog. Die. 386. Ecc. Rec. 
Conn. 

X One of the publications against him was entitled " The 
Examiner, or Gilbert against Tennent" by Rev. John Han* 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 143 

Had he not done this, he, too, would have been 
transported from the Colony as a vagrant. As it 
was, he was publicly censured by the Synod of Phi- 
ladelphia, of which he was a member, for his vio- 
lence and uncharitableness. In 1745 he went to 
Episcopal Virginia, with the hatred of Puritan 
Connecticut, and the censure of Pennsylvania Pres* 
byterianism, and was there licensed to preach. 

CONNECTICUT — -MESSRS. POMEROY AND OWEN. 

We may also mention, that the Rev. Benjamin 
Pomeroy, of Hebron, was brought before the Legis- 
lature of Connecticut, for a similar cause, found guil- 
ty of disrespectful language towards the authorities, 
in regard to their persecutions, deprived of his sal- 
ary, put under bonds for good behaviour, and com- 
pelled to pay £32 10s. 6d. costs of prosecution* 
The Rev. John Owen, of Groton, was also arraign- 
ed before the same body, for the same cause, but let 
off upon paying the costs of prosecution. 

EPISCOPACY IN NEW-YORK. 

The remainder of our author's evidence of the 
vindictive spirit of American Prelacy, relates to 

cock, of Braintree, Mass., (1743,) a man who sympathized 
strongly with the majority of Connecticut ministers, and 
which Rev. Dr. Chauncy, of Boston, announced to Rev. Mr. 
Chauncy, of Durham, as " well calculated to do service."— 
MS. Lett March 16, 1742-3. 



144 PURITANISM 

New-York, and consists of the following allegations 
— -facts we dare not call them, without better proof. 
That the Presbyterians of Jamaica, L. I., had built 
a church and procured a parsonage, before 1702 ; 
that the Episcopalians of the place attempted to get 
the church, and actually got the parsonage ; that the 
first Presbyterian minister that preached in New- 
York was arrested, tried, for what he does not tell, 
and obliged to pay the costs of prosecution ; that for 
a long time Presbyterians were obliged to pay taxes 
to the Episcopal Church, and that for years they 
were prevented by the Episcopalians of New- York 
from obtaining a charter of incorporation.* 

One unacquainted with the facts, would not ob- 
tain much idea of the true state of things in New- 
York, from the representations of our author. The 
case at Jamaica was briefly this. A tract of land 
had been set apart by the town, in 1897, for a par- 
sonage, and in 1700 a church was erected. In 
1702, the Governor, Lord Cornbury, took up his 
residence there, and occupied the parsonage during 
his stay. When he left, instead of delivering pos- 
session to the Presbyterian minister, he gave it to 
the Episcopalians, who had then become quite mi- 

* The opposition which our author charges upon the Epis- 
copalians of New- York, was at the time charged upon the 
" Bishop of London." Chauncy Ans. to Chad. Appeal, p. 
187. Appeal Def. 333* 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 145 

merous, who claimed it, or a right in it, as public 
property. The whole affair seems to have origina- 
ted with the Governor, and all that was done was 
under his protection, and probably at his instigation. 
The whole transaction is in pretty good keeping 
with that relating to the New-Haven Gregson Glebe, 
which we shall add as a counterpart of the story. 

As to the affair of the Presbyterian minister's 
imprisonment, we have no positive evidence ; but it 
seems to be one of the cases in which Lord Corn- 
bury caused the minister to be imprisoned for 
preaching without license, and against the wish 
of the Presbyterian congregation there, at the re- 
quest of a single individual. The application of the 
Presbyterians in New- York for a charter, a. d. 
1759, which our author says was " defeated by the 
strenuous opposition of the Episcopal Church," was 
at the time attributed to the Bishop of London, not- 
withstanding the Board of Trade reported that it 
was against general policy to grant them greater 
privileges than were allowed by the Act of Tolera- 
tion ; and it was held to be contrary to the corona- 
tion oath. But these are exceedingly small matters, 
and only worthy of notice, as showing our author's 
want of knowledge, or candor, on every point in 
debate. 

NEW-HAVEN GREGSON GLEBE. 

This is one of the subjects which has been im- 



146 PURITANISM 

mortalized by Peters, and as he tells the story, is 
about as near the truth as our author's account of 
the Presbyterian persecutions. Indeed, we know 
of no two authors more alike than Peters and Hall. 

The account of Peters is, in brief, that Mr. Greg- 
son came and settled at New-Haven, but not being 
pleased with all things there, advertised his property 
for sale, when he found he could not sell it without 
permission of the civil authorities, and that this could 
not be obtained ; that he then made a will and sailed 
for England, but died on the passage ; that the will, 
which contained a devise for the support of an Epis- 
copal clergyman in New-Haven, was proved and 
recorded ; and that afterwards, the leaves of the re- 
cord, where it was recorded, were carefully glued 
together, and not discovered until 1768, when Peter 
Harrison, Esq., discovered it, and immediately com- 
menced suits for the recovery of the land; and that 
when the occupants found how things were situated 
they resigned the lands to the Church. 

This account is very far from the truth. But 
there was something out of which to make the story, 
— more, it would seem, than Professor Kingsley 
supposed, (Hist. Disc, 87 — 90) — something which 
goes to qualify the epithet of " stupendous falsehood," 
applied to it by the Rev. Dr. Bacon. This will 
appear from a detail of facts, relative to the land in 
question. The statement is compiled from authen- 
tic manuscript documents now in existence. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 147 

DETAIL OF FACTS RELATING TO IT. 

Thomas Gregson was one of the original set- 
tlers of New-Haven, being there in 1639 if not in 
1638. In 1643, his family consisted of six persons, 
and his list amounted to £600.* When he died, 
he gave all his property to his wife Jane, to be dis- 
posed of at her discretion. She died in 1691, ma- 
king a will, and giving the property now known as 
the Glebe in New-Haven, to her daughter Daniels, 
during her life, and then to Richard Gregson, her 
son, who had long resided in London, and in case 
of his death, to his son, if any. 

William Gregson, Sen., son of Richard, born 
in 1670, died 1735, inherited the property willed to 
his father, Richard, by his grandmother, Jane. In 
1707, Joseph Whiting, of Hartford, (son of Rev. 
John Whiting, of Hartford, and Phebe Gregson, his 
wife,) wrote to his cousin, William Gregson, giving 
him a depreciating account of the land here, and 
asking him [W. G.] to give him [J. W.] the prop- 
erty. But Gregson, who had received a different 
account of the property, both as to quantity and qua- 
lity, imagined that Whiting was dealing dishonestly 
with him, and saying so, gave offence to Whiting 
and his friends. 

* Mr. Bacon says he died at sea, 1646. Hist. Disc. 313. — 
Prof. Kingsley, that he sailed for England 1647. Hist. Disc. 
89. 



148 PURITAXISM 

William Gregsox, Jr., was born in 1699, and 
lived in London, as did also his father. 

In 1716, twenty-Jive years after the settlement of 
the last will and testament of Jane Gregson, this 
Joseph Whiting somehow contrived to obtain letters 
of administration on the estate of Thomas Gregson, 
who had then been dead, according to Mr. Bacon, 
seventy years, and administered on the same prop- 
erty disposed of by Jane Gregson twenty-five years 
before. In the division then made, the same 
piece of property was again set to Richard Greg- 
son. 

Very soon after this the property of Richard 
Gregson was entered upon by Daniel Thompson 
and Joseph Whiting, who took possession and oc- 
cupied it for many years. In 1729, William Greg- 
son, Sen., received an offer for the land from Gov. 
Belcher, but the difficulties at New-Haven prevent- 
ed the bargain. 

On the 26th of March, 1736, William Gregson, 
(the second of the name,) made a deed of gift of the 
property to the Rev. Jonathan Arnold, the mission- 
ary at New-Haven, and his successors in office,* in 
trust for a church and parsonage in that town. Mr. 
Arnold was also authorized and empowered to settle 



* The only church then in New-Haven, and for some 
time after, was what is now Christ Church, West-Haven, of 
which Mr. Arnold was then the minister. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 149 

the whole matter, and furnished with the requisite 
proof and papers. After Mr. A.s return to Amer- 
ica, Whiting contrived to obtain clandestine posses- 
sion of Mr. Arnold's papers, which were never re- 
turned, and he was not allowed to search the records 
for other proof in regard to it. He applied to the 
public authorities for redress, but could procure no 
aid. 

About 1740, the Rev. Mr. Arnold sailed for Eng- 
land, as is supposed on this business, but was lost 
on his passage. 

In May, 1765, Mr. Ingersoll, the stamp-master of 
Connecticut, was in England ; and while there he 
told Mr. Gregson, who had requested him to assist 
Mr. Dyer, of New-London, in prosecuting those 
who had entered upon Gregson's land in New-Ha- 
ven, that he " married that Mr. Whiting's daughter 
who took possession of Mr. Gregson's land ; that he 
would take a letter to Mr. Dyer, but begged to be 
excused from assisting in any other manner, as it 
was against his brother-in-law, who was then clerk 
of the records ; said he had searched the records, 
but could not find Gregson's first title." 

In October of the same year, (1765,) Timothy 
Bonticu and Isaac Doolittle, Wardens, and Chris- 
topher Kirby and Stephen Mansfield, Vestrymen of 
Trinity Church, New-Haven, and the rest of the 
members of the Episcopal Church in New-Haven, 
received a deed of release of Enos Ailing, who was 



150 PURITANISM 

then in possession of the " Glebe ;" and in October, 
1768, William Gregson released any right which 
he might then have to the same property, to the 
same persons. 

Both these cases were the acts of individuals, 
by which the respective bodies were deprived 
of their just rights — one under pretence of law, 
the other without law — and both had their origin 
in the intolerance of the age. The story is told 
merely to show what our author indirectly denies, 
that the Puritans were men, subject to like passions 
as other men, and when opportunity offered guilty of 
the same acts of which they so loudly complained in 
others. 



APPENDIX. 

NOTE A. 
LUTHERAN CHURCH AND THEOLOGY. 



SYMPATHY OF THE REFORMERS. 

That a much stronger sympathy existed between the 
English and Continental Reformers, especially those of Ger- 
many, than has ever existed between the Churches in the 
two countries at any later period, every one conversant with 
the history of both will readily allow. But the reason for the 
decline of this feeling seems not to be well understood ; though 
it must be obvious to those who consider the history of both 
bodies carefully. The fact, however, of this change of sen- 
timent, is a fruitful theme of declamation on the part of our 
author, and those like him, who desire to fix upon us the 
charge of having departed from the faith of the Reformers. 
It is necessaiy, therefore, to a proper understanding of this 
subject, to sketch a brief outline of the Lutheran Church 
and Theology, in order to show why this sympathy declined, 
why it has never revived, and why the Reformation itself 
came to be misunderstood, through Lutheran misrepresenta- 
tion of it. Our remarks are confined to Germany, because, 
notwithstanding the correspondence kept up by Cranmer and 
some others with Calvin, and the great respect entertained 
for him among other eminent foreigners, no real sympathy 
existed between the Church of England and Geneva. That 
which did exist, belongs not properly to the Reformers them- 
selves, but to the generation that succeeded them, and had 
respect rather to doctrine than men or discipline. 

The period that elapsed between the publication of the 
Augsburg Confession, in 1530, to the adoption of the For* 



152 PURITANISM 

mula of Concord, in 1580, has besn called the " creative pe- 
riod of the Lutheran Church "* During the whole of this 
time considerable liberty of opinion was allowed among the 
Lutherans, both as regarded doctrine and discipline ; t for 
Luther himself, before his death, became considerably soft- 
ened on some points of doctrine. Melancthon, who was Lu- 
ther's bosom friend and trusty counsellor, held many senti- 
ments to which Luther would not assent, especially touching 
the organization and discipline of the Church, being willing* 
if not desirous, to retain the ancient regimen. He also differ- 
ed from Luther somewhat in regard to the relation of faith 
and works, and also in regard to the importance of the Sacra- 
mental controversy.! After the death of Luther, in 1546, to 
the death of Melancthon, in 1560, he was the leading Ger- 
man Reformer, and efforts were made, both by him and his 
friends, to secure greater uniformity of sentiment among the 
reformed, and if possible to bring about a union between 
them and the Catholic Church of Germany. § Failing in 
these attempts, and being persecuted by his brethren because 
of them, he gladly " hailed death as a refuge from the frenzy 
of the theologians." || 

ENGLISH REFORMATION AND MELANCTHON. 

It was after the death of Luther, and while Melancthon 
was "the head and leader of the Theologians of the Luthe- 

* Schaf. 98. 

tPusey I. 18—26. Muenscli. 133, 134. Mosh. III. 175—178. 

+ Mosh. III. 165. 

§ Melancthon made this attempt by means of a Conference held at 
Worms, so late as 1557, only three years before his death; but was 
prevented from accomplishing any thing by the violence of the parties. 
—Scott. Luther, and Luth. Ref. II. 281. Bur. Ref. II. 455, 456. 

|| Bayle Hist. Crit. Die. IV. 137, "a rabie Theologorum," were his 
words before he died, as one of the reasons why he ought not to be 
sorry to die. Pusey 1. 11. Schaf. 120. Life Melanc. Am. Encyc. VIII. 392. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 153 

rah Church,"* that English Reformation was effected. And 
no foreigners opinions had as much influence in England as 
Melanchthon's. He was repeatedly invited to England, by 
Cranmer himself; and even the King wrote in his own name 
requesting him to come.t But though Melanchthon could not 
be prevailed upon to leave Germany, some of his friends and 
associates were obtained, who aided essentially in the work of 
Reformation. Now, if we compare the doctrines and disci- 
pline of the two Churches, it will be found that the English 
and Lutheran differ exactly where Luther and Melanchthon 
differed, and that the preference is always given to the opin- 
ion of Melanchthon. The sympathy of the English Reformers 
would therefore have been with Melanchthon and his friends, 
rather than with Luther himself, had he been living ; and 
hence it must necessarily follow, that the sympathy of the 
English Church itself would be with the Melanchthonian 
school of the Lutheran Church. These points of sympathy, 
in addition to those which necessarily arose from their being 
engaged in a common cause, were chiefly preference for the 
primitive regimen of the Church, milder statements of doc- 
trine, with moderate and cautious measures in Reformation, 
so as not to rend the unity of the Church. 

MELANCHTHONIAN SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY— FORMULA OF CONCORD. 

These opinions seem to have gained ground after the death 
of Luther, and vigorous measures were taken by those who 
claimed to be the representatives of genuine Lutheranis?n } to 
prevent their increase. The most important and effective of 
these, was the Formula of Concord, adopted in various coun- 
tries, from 1576 to 1580, which was composed with an espe- 
cial reference to the dangers which were supposed to threaten 
pure Lutheranism, and which eventually rooted out the 

* Mosh. III. 164, f Massingberd. Eng. Ref. 105. 



154 PURITANISM 

school of Melanchthon from the Lutheran Church.* The 
Lutheran Church now received a fixed character, beyond all 
probability of change, and its theology was shut up within 
the narrow limits of its symbolical books. It changed, in 
fact, the character of the Reformation. Though speaking 
the words of Luther, it had no sympathy with his free spirit, 
nor any of the mild and cautious prudence of Melanchthon. 
Thenceforward it " appeared under the guise of an intricate 
scholastic system, and breathed a narrow sectarian spirit."t 

NEGLECT OF EPISCOPACY IN GERMANY. 

There was another circumstance which must have tended 
to the same result : a strange, and in some respects an unac- 
countable inconsistency in the Continental Reform ers, the 
fatal effects of which are felt to this day. It is well known 
that these men never pretended to seek the overthrow of the 
ancient regimen of the Church, but to desire its restoration 
to the primitive and Episcopal model, for which they always 
professed great respect. And it has been supposed that 
they would have retained it had it been possible. But 
while this is true in regard to some individuals, in regard 
to the great body of them it is doubtful, Once committed to 
an error, it was hard to break away from it. That the Epis- 
copal form of government might have been retained in Ger- 
many, and would have been retained in the Arch-Diocese of 
Cologne, but for the interference of the civil rulers, is evident 
from the history of Archbishop Hermann, who was ejected 
from his See in 1546, for adopting the principles of the Re- 
formation. He lived in retirement until 1552, when he died, 
aged eighty. Also, from the history of Frederic, brother of 
the Archbishop, and Bishop of Munster, who resigned his 

* Muensch. 133. Mosh. III. 178. Pusey I. 20, II. 363. 
tPusey I. 21. Scliaf. 130. Muensch. 138. Mosh. III. 172—180. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 155 

See in 1532. and died in 1553. He lived an exile in his own 
city, dependant upon the charity of its citizens.* 

Hermann's plan of reformation, and the English. 

Hermann's scheme of Reformation, drawn up by Bucer, 
with the aid of Melanchthon and Pistorius, and carefully re- 
vised by the Archbishop himself, was substantially that pur- 
sued afterwards in England, for which it seems to have 
served as a model, as it was translated into English, and 
twice published in London — the last time in 1548.T Had that 
scheme been adopted by the German Reformers, that coun- 
try would no doubt have been saved many of the dire evils 
which have since oitlicted it. The neglect of it, and of the 
men who had sacrificed all for it, could not fail to produce an 
influence in England, when the time came for reflection and 
consideration. 

natural decline of sympathy. 

We might have expected that this state of things would 
have effectually sundered every bond of sympathy which had 
heretofore subsisted between the two Churches, and which 
naturally arose out of their similarity of doctrine, had the 
Church of England remained precisely where it was in the 
days of Edward VI. But this was impossible. Though all 

* Scott's Luther and Luth. Ref. II. 142—152. 

t Bayle's Hist, and Crit. Die. Art. Bucer, II. 171, withCalvinand Vos- 
sius's Epistles there quoted. Scott, 149. A similar case of inconsistency- 
occurred in France, in 1561, showing the force of custom, when once 
men are committed to an error which their judgments at first con- 
demned. John -ntony Carraccioli, Bishop of Troyes, publicly em- 
braced Protestantism in 1561, whereupon a Convention of the Clergy 
of the Reformed Church met to consider his case, and after a full dis- 
cussion acknowledged him as a true Bishop. But no effort seems to 
have been made to perpetuate the ofiice.— Life of Carraccioli, inBayle, 
Hist. Crit. Die. II. 313, Note A. 



156 PURITANISM 

the great principles of the Church, both of doctrine and ritual, 
had been established by the Reformers, it required time to 
carry them out in all the details of their practical operation, 
and without this they could not be judged of as a system. 
The two systems, therefore, would prove to be much farther 
apart, in their details, than they had seemed to be from the 
mere statement of their principles; and consequently, the 
more thoroughly the two systems were developed, the less 
ground there would have been for sympathy, had the For- 
mula of Concord never been adopted 

FORMULA OF CONCORD ITS EFFECTS. 

That instrument tended, also, not only to extinguish the 
sympathy existing be \ ween the two bodies, as such, but 
would stand in the way of its revival, so long as it remained 
the authoritative exponent of Lutheran doctrine. The de- 
parture from the primitive organization of the Church, which 
Melanchthon dep'ored, and which was justified at first only 
on the ground of necessity, was now upheld as a matter of 
right ; and this of itself would have prevented official minis- 
terial intercourse, had the bonds of sympathy, in other re- 
spects, been ever so strong. We see, therefore, that the 
decline of sympathy between the Church of England and 
the foreign Churches, was not the result of any change of 
opinion on the part of the Church of England, but of the 
altered circumstances of those foreign bodies ; and also that 
the same cause which led to its decline has prevented its 
revival. 

LUTHERAN MISREPRKRENTATION OF THE REFORMATION. 

There is still another cause why this sympathy could never 
revive, arising out of an erroneous estimate of the Lutheran 
Reformation, through Lutheran misrepresentation of it. We 
do not mean by this that there has been any intentional mis- 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 157 

representation, but simply that the Lutheran Church never 
has been a true representation of the real sentiments of Lu- 
ther even, to say nothing of Melanchtiion, and that her theo- 
logians and historians have seldom presented it in its true 
light. From the time of the Formula of Concord, every 
theologian was shut up within the narrow bounds of the sym- 
bolical books, and no man was permitted to go beyond, or fall 
short of it in any particular.* The consequence was, that 
ecclesiastical history became comparatively useless, and was 
very generally neglected, and thorough and independent Bib- 
lical Exegesis unnecessary, if not dangerous. Polemics 
usurped the place of theology, and for a century most of the 
doctors of the universities, and a great body of the clergy, 
were occupied in explaining and defending the tenets and 
dogmas of the Church. t 

SCHOOL OF THE PIETISTS. 

It must be obvious that persons thus engaged could neither 
exemplify the principles of religion, nor of the Reformation. 
Some of the evils arising from this state of things, the Pie- 
tists, who sprung from the school of Speuer, (born 1629, died 
1705,) attempted to remedy. But though they saw and felt 
the neglect of ecclesiastical history and b blical interpretation, 
they did not pursue tkem with sufficient energy or accuracy 
to gain a thorough apprehension of them ; and the school 
itself either degenerated into mysticism, or passed over into 
unbelief, t The collisions of the Pietist and orthodox schools, 
however, produced some men of eminence, among whom 

* Pusey I. 20--26. M uensch. 133. 

tPusey I. 26-40, 139-147; II. 54-87, 119-127, Mosh. 15. IV. cent. 
XVII. §2. Part II. c. 1; though the latter cannot 1 e said, in every respect, 
to he an impartial witness. See, also, Schlegei's Notes on the same. 
Those interpreters of this period who still retain their value, either he- 
Ion ^ed to the school of Melanchthon or partook of its mild spirit. 

| Pusey I. 68-110. 



153 PURITANISM 

Mosheim is extensively known in this country, through his 
ecclesiastical history.* 

SCHOOLS OF ERNESTI AND SExMLER. 

But these efforts were not without effect, as they ultimate- 
ly led to the establishment of two different schools, both of 
which have ministered largely to unbelief; that of Ernesti, 
which pursued the " grammatical," as opposed to the doc- 
trinal system of interpretation ; and that of Sender, which 
proposed to follow the " historical interpretation " of the sa- 
cred record. The principle of the Reformers, that the Bible 
was to be its own interpreter, includes within itself the reli- 
gious, historical, and grammatical elements ; and consequent- 
ly the schools of Spener,t and Semler,} and Ernesti, all 
failed of apprehending the true Protestant ground, inasmuch 
as they pushed (often ignorantly, always unscientifically,) 
one element to an extreme, regardless of the consideration 
due to the other two.§ 

* Much praise is due to this author as a historian, since he was the 
first who raised ecclesiastical history in Germany above the charac- 
ter of a chronicle, (Pusey I. III.,) though we cannot give him the credit 
ofbeing always impartial; especially in the early ages of the Church. 
No one familiar with the subject can read a chapter touching the 
Church, without seeing the bias of his theological opinions. Nor at a 
later period can he always be trusted, as is clear from his mutilation 
and misrepresentation of St. Eligius, Bishop of Noyon, in the seventh 
century. Comp.B. II. cent. VII. Part ii. c. ii., with Waddington's Chur. 
Hist. 141, 251. There is also a gross error running through his work, 
that has done a vast amount of mischief: the continued misrepresen- 
tation that the vices of the early clergy led to the degradation of 
Christianity, which deepened through descending centuries. Pusey [I. 
130. It is high time he was laid aside as authority in this country, as 
he has long been in Germany. Schaf. 166. 

t Schaf. 99. Pusey I. 27, 81. 

X Schaf. 100. Pusey I. 142, 143. 

§ Schaf. 163. Pusey 1. 132. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 159 



SCHOOLS OF RATIONALISM. 

Out of this state of things arose the RationaVsm of Ger- 
many, whence proceeded its Neology, or New Theology, the 
supporters of which are divided by Bretschneider* into four 
classes. The first regard all revelation as superstition, and 
Jesus Christ, (if he ever existed,) as a well meaning fanatic 
or impostor. These were the lineal successors of the Eng- 
lish and French Deists and Infidels, embracing in the first 
instance no theologians ;t and second, those who regard Chris- 
tianity as a sort of republication of natural religion — allowing 
Christ a real existence, but no divine authority — making 
him a sort of mystagogue. To this class belong such men as 
Bahrdt, Venturini, and Brennecke, among the theologians, 
and Reimaur and others not of the clergy. The third class 
are those which especially assume the name of Rationalists. 
These allow Christianity to be a divine, benevolent, and po- 
sitive appointment for the good of mankind, and that the 
word of God is contained in the Scriptures, and that Jesus 
was a messenger of Divine Providence ; but deny any thing 
miraculous, and separate that which they regard as local and 
temporary from that which they consider universal and per- 
petual in Christianity. To this class belong the philosophers 
Steinbert, Kant, Krug ; and among theologians, W. A. Tel- 
ler, Loffler, Thiess, Henke, J. E. C. Schmidt, DeWette, 
Paulus, Wegscheider, Rohr, etc. The fourth class, who 
dislike to be called Rationalists, but are in reality such, allow 
the Bible and Christianity to be divine — in a higher sense 
than the avowed Rationalists — allow " a revealed operation 
of the power of God," but "distinguish between the Bible 
and word of God," and insist upon establishing the divine 

* Bretschneider's Ans. to Rose. 30-32. 

t Strauss Bruno Baur, and Fuerbach, seem properly to belong - here. 



160 PURITANISM 

nature of Christianity upon internal proofs, rather than upon 
miracles. To this class belong Doederlin, Morus, ReinharcU 
Armmon, Schott, Niemeyer, Bretschneider, &c. 

SCHOOL OF THE SUPERNATURALISTS. 

There was also another party, which Bretschneider does 
not mention by name : the remnant of the old Orthodox Lu- 
therans, commonly known as the Supernaturalists, which he 
describes as being very small in numbers — the greater share 
of clergy and laity belonging to his fourth class — which he 
dignifies with the name of " Evangelical."* Some of the 
men whom he reckons as belonging to this class, were once 
Supernaturalists ; but they endeavored, by means of various 
compromises, to make Christianity as agreeable as possible 
to the natural man. They treated about peace — they made 
concessions — they retrograded so far, that in the end they 
fairly fell over to the enemy's side, as was the case with 
Armmon, Schott, and Bretschneider, or exchanged names 
with their opponents, and became Rational- Supernatural- 
ists, as in the case of Reinhard.t Some of the peculiarities of 
this ic Evangelical " school, may be inferred from Bretschnei- 
der's representation of the teaching of the early Church ; 
for he says, up to the year 325, we find nothing of the 
" Trinity, Original Sin, man's inability to do good, or the 
satisfaction [atonement?] of Chejst ;" t assertions it is diffi- 
cult to reconcile with the reputed learning of those men. 

NEW LUTHER SCHOOL. 

But these schools have had their day, and are on the 
decline. The half-infidel, half-pantheistic philosophies of 
Schelling and Hegel, led the way to a restoration of the 

* Bret. 35, 36. t Wingard, 183. Schaf. 147. 

+ Reply, 32. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 161 

belief in the Incarnation and Alonemev,* and other impor- 
tant doctrines, naturally followed in their train ; especially a 
belief in a unity of the Church, and the importance and effi- 
cacy of the Sacraments Out of all this collision and dis- 
cussion, out of the joint influence of religion and philos- 
ophy, combined with various other causes, has arisen a new 
school of German theology, which is now the most preva- 
lent. It is not Rationalism, but orthodoxy resuscitated, with 
new life from its ruins. With the decision, power and fervor 
of the Old Church faith, it unites more scientific freedom, 
greater disentanglement from prejudice, and more fullness 
and roundness of method.! But we must not yet be too 
sanguine as to the result. The whole " Evangelical Church 
of Germany is at present in an interimistic state, involved in 
a process of fermentation and transition, whifch brings along 
with it necessarily a measure of uncertainty and experi- 
ment." t Men's minds are much in the dark. Philosophy 
holds too absolute a sway ; and often a philosophy of more 
than a doubtful character. The language of its theology is 
too human. It addresses itself too much to the man, to the 
neglect of the Christian. It bows too obsequiously to hu- 
man reason. § Hence why it is that the writings of the most 
orthodox often contain things which cannot fail to give pain 
to every right minded Christian, and which could hardly fail 



* Schaf. 150. The philosophy of Schelling has its chief theological 
representation in Daub ; that of Hegel inMarheiuecke, (Pusey 1. 115;) 
but Rothe, Dorner, Martensen, Hoffman, and Hasse, are more or less 
ruled by it, (Schaf. 148 ;) Tholuck is half a convert to it,(Stowe. Bib. Rep. 
3d Series, I. 86 ;) Hengstenberg regards it as the very concentration of 
Atheism and falsehood, (Sto*ve, lb.;) while Paulus considers that it only 
serves to make darkness more visible. (Stowe lb. I. 89.) 
t Schaf. 147. 148. J Schaf. 155. 

§ See a graphic picture of the present state of things in Germany, by 
Professor Stowe. Bib. Rep, 3d Series,!. 86-96, 

8* 



162 PURITANISM. 

to minister to unbelief if transplanted here, whatever may be 
their influence at home. 

Still, amid all this darkness there are signs of hope. It 
breathes the free spirit of Luther, and the mild spirit of Me- 
lanchthon, associated with the orthodox sentiments of both, 
accompanied by truer views of the Church and the Sacra- 
ments, the importance of her unity, and the sin of schism, 
than could have been found at any time before, since the 
adoption of the Formula of Concord. With these men, or 
rather with these opinions, Churchmen can again have sym- 
pathy, notwithstanding their erroneous sentiments in regard 
to the form of the ministry ; while Mr. Hall and his asso- 
ciates, if they ever come to understand the sentiments of 
those men, will regard them in no better light than they do 
us. + 

But, in addition to this, there is a decided, and we believe, 
an increasing wish in many parts of Germany, to restore the 
Episcopal form of Church government. Sweden always has 
been Episcopal, in fact and form. Denmark is so in form, 
though (probably) not in fact. In Prussia an approximation 
has been made to Episcopacy in form, and so late as 1843 
the periodicals said : " The state of ecclesiastical matters is 
yet unsettled in Prussia. Whether Presbytery or Episcopacy 
will prevail is uncertain. The tendency is rather towards 
the latter, and that High Churchism."* And Dr. Schaf, 
who may be regarded as representing the most orthodox the- 
ologians of the Evangelical Church of Germany, says : " I 
have all respect for the Episcopal system. It possesses, in 
fact, many undeniable advantages ; and by its antiquity, be- 
sides, must command the veneration of all who have any 
right historical feeling."? In this we see the wish of Me- 
lanchthon revived, and may we not hope, about to be realized. 

* Bib. Rep. X. [N, S.] 499. t Prot. Principle, 126. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 163 



NOTE B. 

NEANDER'S DEFECTS AS A CHURCH HISTO- 
RIAN. 

The great reputation which Neander has obtained as a 
historian, and in many respects justly, renders it important 
that those who follow him as a guide, should know before- 
hand what are his deficiencies, and where he cannot be 
safely trusted. And it is precisely as a Church historian that 
his opinion has the least weight, and this because of his er- 
roneous notions in regard to the Chmch, and because he is 
deficient in Church feeling. In the history of the Church, 
says Rauch, (Church Historians in Germany — Bib. Rep. X. 
302,) " much depends upon what the historian understands 
by the Church. His notion of it may be considered his fun- 
damental view, upon which he raises the superstructure of 
his history." It is important, therefore, that the historian's 
views, both of the Church and its doctrine, be sound ; which 
is more than can be said of Neander on either point. In re- 
ligion he belongs to the school of Schleirmacher, (Schaf. 
148,) who, according to Professor Stuart, (Bib. Rep. V. 266,) 
" aimed too much at system and theoretical perfection, 

of orderly and logical analysis and development in 

obtaining which he appears to have occasionally left out of 
sight some of the plain and practical deductions of the Scrip- 
tures." * In philosophy Neander is a disciple of Jaeobi, 
(Rauch, lb. 314,) and regards faith as " a rational instinct, 
a knowing from immediate feeling, a direct perception of the 
supersensible, without any intervening proof."— (Murd. Ger. 

* And whom the Rationalistic Bretschneider says adopted the 
" Church system, in order to cloak a philosophical system under it," 
(Rep. Rose, 36.) 



164 PURITANISM 

Philos. 131.) That this "feeling differs in everyone, and 
must be peculiarly characterized in each Christian," and con- 
sequently would be cramped and impeded in its development 
by symbolical books and confessions. Hence, with him " it 
matters little whether a man is an Arian, a Nestorian, or a 
Calvinist, if he be only pious." He is opposed to any estab- 
lished Church, and allows no constitution to it, as a visible 
body.— (Rauch, lb. 313, 314.)* In the language of the New- 
Englander, (II. 270.) " His views of the authority of certain 
books in our Canon of the Scripture, and on some topics of 
dogmatical theology, would not harmonize with the profes- 
sions and sentiments of our religious community." While, 
therefore, Neander has great learning, and thorough ac- 
quaintance with antiquity, he cannot be trusted as a Church 
historian. His fundamental view is more or less erroneous, 
and his views of the connection between the Jewish and 
Christian Churches altogether faulty. He may develope the 
piety of individuals well, but he has no proper idea of life in 
the Church. He may describe the separate parts of the 
system, as existing independently of each other, but he can- 
not put them together, so as to show the proper working of 
the whole body. He must ever be deficient as a Church 
historian, because his views of the Church must ever render 
him deficient in proper Church feeling. — (Schaf. 166.) And 
it is this very feature of his work, this unchurchly view of 
things, that recommends him so strongly to the unchurchly 
sects of our own country. 

* Educated as a Jew, he went to the opposite extreme, as indeed his 
philosophy would be likely to carry him, when he became a Christian. 
As he formerly failed of apprehending the spirit of the old dispensa- 
tion, so now he fails of apprehending- the form of the new : regarding 
the former as altogether " outward and visible," the latter as merely 
"internal and spiritual." (Intd. Coleman's Prim. Ch. 14.) His theolo- 
gical opinions arc also unsound. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 165 

These defects of Neandcr will be more apparent upon con- 
trasting his view of the Church with the more orthodox New 
Lutheran views of the present day. The idea of the Church, 
according to those, is to be found in the God- Man, Jesus 
Christ, it being founded in the Incarnation itself. In its 
divine, ideal, and heavenly nature, it is eternal, invisible, and 
unchangeable. In its human, real, and earthly nature, it is 
developed m time, in doctrines, discipline, and rites, and is the 
continuation of the earthly human life of the Redeemer, in 
his threefold office of prophet, priest, and king. This idea of 
the Church, as existing in Christ, is necessarily that of a 
unity — a whole — without difference or opposition. The 
Church, which is the body of Christ, is Christianity — abso- 
lute in its nature, sacramental in its character — so that with- 
out the Church there can be no Christianity. But though 
the idea of the Church implies a perfect unity, which shall 
one day be realized in its outward manifestation, its proper 
development has hitherto been impeded by the circumstances 
by which it has been surrounded, so that its true unity has 
never been fully realized since the primitive age. So, too, 
though Christianity is in itself the absolute religion, and in 
this view admitting of no improvement, its manifestation in 
the world has not come up to the perfection of the original. 
The apprehension of it by the Church, and its appropriation 
by individual Christians, have been more or less imperfect or 
faulty ; so that the world has seen no example of a perfect 
Christianity save in the life of its founder. To this standard of 
unity and truth the Church, under all its diversified forms, 
and amid all the conflicts through which it has to pass, both 
from within and without, is constantly advancing, even when 
it seems to be retrograding, under the multiplied evils brought 
to bear upon it.* 

■ Rauch, Bib. Rep. X ? 314—316, Schaf, 177 — 180, Heagstenberg, in 
Note C. 



166 PURITANISM 

But Neander's view of things is as wide as possible from 
this. He makes the idea of an invisible Church the principle 
of historiography, and maintains that the visible Church on 
earth is at variance with this, instead of being a development 
from it. Consequently, the visible Church bears no relation 
to the invisible, being the product, merely, of those combina- 
tions of opinions, actions, and circumstances, by which Chris- 
tians have been surrounded. It is in no sense, therefore, a 
medium of grace, and consequently he can conceive of no 
such thing as life in the Church. Truth, therefore, is to be 
" apprehended" by individuals, not by the Church; and to 
be developed in the history of individuals, not in that of the 
Church. What, therefore, we have been accustomed to 
regard as heresy, is mostly the peculiar apprehension of re- 
ligious truth by particular individuals, modified by the pecu- 
liarities of position, place, circumstance, and temperament of 
each.* 

With the former, the Church is (to adopt their own lan- 
guage) organic ; " the organism of Christ," and the princi- 
ple of " corporiety," or that of organized life, is the law of its 
being — the " idea " t existing anterior to its development — 

* Ranch, X. 314—316. 

t A few words seem to be necessary concerning the sense in 
which the Germans employ the term idea, especially those who 
are at all influenced by the philosophy of Hegel, as out of it arises 
the doctrine of development. They do not use it to signify merely the 
intellectual apprehension of a fact, nor to signify " habitual judg- 
ments " in regard to facts, as Mr. Newman supposes, (Theory Devel. c. 
i. §1.,) but to denote the abstract essence of an entity as it exists, in 
and of itself; that generic essentia which, though invisible itself, may 
be seen in every individual development. These developments are re- 
lated to the idea, as specie to genus. Every development, therefore, 
must partake of the nature and essence of the "idea " from which it is 
developed ; and no single development can ever come up to the " idea " 
itself, as that includes all specific developments, which together consti- 
tute the genus. Consequently, we cannot learn the character of the 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 167 

the whole preceding the parts. With the latter, the visible 
Church, is an " atomic " compound of independent, (and for 
this purpose,) isolated individuals, and results from the mere 
choice of its individual members. With the former, the min- 
istry is " the organ of Christ," knowing itself to be incorpo- 
rated in the " organism of Christ," and bearing testimony 
from out of the common life of the Church. With the latter, 
every individual Christian is " a private organ of Christ," 
and may bear testimony from out of the particular spiritual 
life communicated to itself. With one, each individual is 
united to the body, in order that, by virtue of such union, it 
may partake of the life and spirit of the same. According 
to the other, each individual receives life, in order that it 
may be qualified for companionship with other living individ- 
uals. 

" idea " from the developments— of the genus from the species — until 
all specific developments are known. In regard to Christianity and 
the Church, we have the " idea" itself, in the God-Man, Christ Je- 
sus, made known in Holy Writ, at once the model of the Church and 
the example of the Christian, and the truth of all developments is to be 
determined by their correspondence to that; until the Gospel shall be 
fully apprehended by the Church, and its influence have pervaded 
every walk of life and every department of society. The Romish and 
Pantheistic applications of this doctrine are both false and unscientific. 
Truly applied, it is the foundation of all that is true, in what is some- 
times called the sacramentality of nature, by which is meant the union 
of the Word and Element, and the correspondence of the external and 
visible with the invisible and spiritual, 



168 Puritanism: 



NOTE C. 

NEW LUTHERAN VIEW OF THE SACRA- 
MENTS. 

REV. DR. HENGSTENBERG. 

We have already seen what views the orthodox Lutherans 
of the present day entertain of the Church, and it will be in- 
teresting to see what are their opinions in regard to the Sa- 
craments. For this purpose we shall make a series of quota- 
tions from two living orthodox Lutherans, whose learning and 
piety entitle them to the highest consideration. Our first 
quotations are from an article in Evangelisch-Kirchen Zei- 
tung for March, 1846, edited by Rev. Prof. E. W. Heng- 
stenberg, D.D., the acknowledged leader of the New Luth- 
erans, and whose name is familiar to the theologians of this 
country. The article is entitled " The mystery of Baptism." 
We quote from a translation made for the Irish Ecclesiasti- 
cal Journal for May and June, 1846. 

" THE MYPTERY OF BAPTrSM. 

" Every evangelical Christian, who has been baptized, has 
herewith been also gifted with the desire, and placed under 
the obligation, of continually searching deeply into the mys- 
tery of holy Baptism. The desire each must feel according 
to the measure and manner of his calling, if he does not 
suppress it through carelessness or through design. The 
obligation no one can deny, without disowning the Baptism 
itself, which has been conferred on him. 

" 'Ah ! dear Christian ! let us not so carelessly regard and 
treat such unutterable gifts ! Baptism is surely our only 
comfort, and admission to all divine gifts, and into the Com- 
munion of Saints. May God assist us ! Amen ! ' 



XOT GENUINE PEOTESTAXTISM 169 

In Luthers larger Catechism this exhortation is repeated, 
pressingly and often : ' Every Christian has, therefore, during 
his whole existence, enough to learn and to practice in refer- 
ence to Baptism j for he has continually to take care that he 
firmly believe what it promises and confers, viz., the victory 
over death and the Devil, Remission of Sins, the Grace of 
God, the full participation of Christ, and the Holy Ghost with 
His gifts. In fine, it is so superabundant, that if feeble na- 
ture could reflect, it would certainly question whether the 
fact could be true.' 

" Our Catechism itself introduces us to the mystery of holy 
Baptism, which no baptized person can exhaust. The Cat- 
echism directs us, at the same time, to the Scripture -doc- 
trine of Baptism."' [Here he quotes Matt, xxviii. 19. Mark 
xvi. 16. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. Eph. v. 25, 26. 1 Pet. iii. 
21. Tit. iii. 5—7. Heb. x. 21,22. Gal. iii. 27. 1 Cor. xii. 13.; 
when he proceeds.] 

" In these passages a good lesson is given to each for his 
entire life, in order, as Luther says, to carry on the work of 
Baptism, which remains with us, and works forward, although 
the Sacrament itself cannot be repeated." 

CHRISTIANITY SACRAMENTAL. 

" ' "Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. 
God was manifest in the flesh.' ' The word was made flesh.' 
On this mystery Christianity depends. Christianity, on this 
account, is essentially sacramental ; for a Sacrament im- 
plies this, that the Word comes to the Element {das Wort 
zum Elemente kommt.) On the mystery of the Incarnation 
of God in Christ the Christian Church is founded — nay more, 
the very marrov: of the Church, the innermost mystery of the 
Church — the Sacrament — for the Sacrament is the real ap- 
propriation (Leibhaftige Aneignung) of the God-Man." 



170 PURITANISM 



ONE SACRAMENT IN TWO PARTS. 

"As there is only one Church of Christ, so also there is 
only one Sacrament. But as the one universal Church com- 
prehends within itself several degrees and divisions, so also 
the Sacrament consists of two degrees and divisions, each of 
which contains the Sacrament whole and undivided : ■ There 
is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope 
of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God 
and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in 
you all.' — (Eph. iv 4 — 6.) One body, founded on one be- 
lief in one Spirit, in one Lord, in one God the Father, with 
the Son and the Spirit, through one Baptism. The Apostle 
Paul names only one Sacrament, and that manifestly Bap- 
tism ; but in and with Baptism also the Sacrament of the 
Supper (des. Abendmalds.) Baptism is, like the Supper, a 
communion of Christians with Christ, and with the body of 
Christ, wiiich is the Church — and that, too, Sacramental 
Communion — Communion through the Word in the Ele- 
ment. 

" In Baptism, also, the Supper has been already included, 
for we who are baptized are baptized into the death of 
Christ. In the Supper, the baptismal bond is also renewed, 
for ' the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- 
munion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, 
is it not the communion of the body of Christ.' " 

difference between the parts. 

" Christ is in both Sacraments undivided, as in one. The 
distinction to be drawn in the first place, amounts only to 
this, that the Christian, through baptism, enters into commu- 
nion with Christ and his body, which is the Church ; there- 
fore, Baptism can only once be administered to each man : 
1 He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is 



NOT GENUINE PKOTESTANTISM. 171 

clean every whit.' In the Supper, however, his pilgrimage 
is con tinned still further ; and at each participation he renews 
this same communion, until he partake of it anew with 
Christ in the kingdom of the Father. The second distinc- 
tion is this, that in Baptism the Sacrament — or, in other 
words, the real uniting of the triune God with man — comes 
to the man ; whilst, in the Supper, man approaches to the 
Sacrament. For this very reason, Baptism? as a Sacrament, 
is administered but once ; while the Supper, as being the 
renewal of the baptismal bond, is held forth to us as often as 
we approach. There is the grace which hastes to meet us — 
here that which fully prepares." 

REV. DR. MARTENSEN. 

Such is the language of Hengstenberg's Evangelical 
Church- Journal. We proceed to give another series of Ex- 
tracts from the same paper, not original with it, being a par- 
aphrastic translation and abridgment of a little work, entitled 
K * Christian Baptism and the Baptist Question," by Rev. H. 
Martensen, D. D., Professor of Theology in the University 
of Copenhagen. The extracts already made, speak the 
language of the New Lutherans of Prussia, the following 
may be regarded as representing the opinions and sentiments 
of those in Denmark ; approved, also, by Rev. Dr. Heng- 
stenberg. It will be seen, that both Dr. Martensen and Dr. 
Hengstenberg suppose many other important doctrines to be 
immediately connected with Baptism." 

PLAN OF DR. M.'S WORK. 

" The little work [of Dr. M.] is divided into five sections ; 
for it seeks (always with respect to the erroneous doctrine of 
Baptism) to prove, from the idea of Baptism, according to 
Scripture — 1st. That Baptism consolidates the Church, pub- 
lic worship, and preaching in the Church, and proportionably, 



172 PURITANISM 

the faith also: 2d. That it is essentially designed for child- 
ren ; and besides these, for such persons only who have not 
been baptized as children, and who are therefore baptized by 
way of addition — solely, however, on the supposition that 
they are related to it as children: 3d. That it bestows itself 
as true, in other words, as sacramental Predestination : 4th. 
That it is the Sacrament of Justification and Regeneration, 
and consequently already contains the essence (das Wesen) 
of Justification and Regeneration : 5th. That it commences 
objectively with the Apostolic Confession of Faith : and sub- 
jectively in Confirmation is put into action, and authenti- 
cated." 

BAPTISMAL ELECTION INTO AN ORGANIC BODY. 

" I. What the personal election of Christ was for the 
first band of disciples, the same is Baptism for the succeeding 
community ; namely, the Divine Act, whereby Christ gives 
individually to his Church the true, the eternal beginning ; 
whereby he also propagates the Church in the unending 
course of the method of Salvation. And this Act is not doc- 
trine, is not preaching, but a Sacrament, by me^ns of which 
Christ gives Himself For this very reason must the Chris- 
tian preacher, who administers the Sacrament in Christ's 
name, know himself to be the organ [or mmisteri A represen- 
tative] of Christ; and as such he can only know himself so 
far as he is himself incorporated in the organism [or organ- 
ized body] o' Christ, or the Church. For only through the 
[organic] whole (das Qanze,) is Christ related to the indi- 
vidual; and every true Communion with Christ is only a 
Comm union with Him as the Head of the Body." 

THE CHURCH, ACCORDING TO Tl E SECTSj \ "O TIC 

" This ' Church, those Secte m 

which regard the Church as the result, as the product only 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 173 

of the individual members, and not as pre-assuming their 
existence. The Sects wish to produce the whole, through 
an atomic [or individual] compound of its [independent] 
parts : white, on the other hand, this is the secret of Organ- 
ism, that the whole precedes the parts ; and thus the Com- 
munion 0*" Saints precedes the existence of individual mem- 
bers. But to this Organism the Church attains through the 
Sacrament of Baptism, by means of which she places Chris- 
tians, before they are yet conscious of it, in the most intimate 
relation of Communion with Christ, and among themselves, 
just as each individual man also in every respect is placed 
(even before he could give his assent) in determined rela- 
tions. The Sacrament of Baptism is, therefore, at once the 
opening point of all worship, and the door of Faith." 

WORSHIP AND BAPTISM. 

" Worship is to be understood not merely as the service of 
God, or as Communion in order to edification ; this is but 
one side of worship, according to which Christ is only its 
object : according to the other side, Christ is also the sub- 
ject of worship ; it is He who founds the Communion, who is 
the Eternal High Priest, who himself is present, and himself 
officiates ; the King, who perceptibly goes through the ranks, 
and causes his presence to be felt. This conception of the 
eternal Kingdom is precisely that fundamental mystery on 
which the Church reposes." 

FAITH AND BAPTISM. 

" In the same degree Christian Faith is not only faith on 
Christ, but also (and indeed in the first instance) faith 
through Christ ; and for that very reason, in the third place, 
faith in Christ. In this manner, faith (according to its Sac- 
ramental genesis) comes forth from Baptism, in which it is 
imparted through Christ, within his Organism." 



174 PURITANISM 



PREACHING AND BAPTISM. 

" When it is written, ' Faith cometh by preaching,' (aus 
der Predigt,) by this statement the exoteric side of truth is 
in the first place laid down. For it is added, in close con- 
nection, * Preaching comes by the word ' — (die Perdigt 
kommt aus dem Worte :) this is the esoteric side of truth. 
Baptism is the Word in, with, and under the water sprinkled 
by a priestly organ of the Church. It is, however, certainly 
not the final commencement of faith, which also comes by 
preaching, through the medium of one's own perception and 
determination of will." 

THE SACRAMENT ESSENTIALLY INFANT BAPTISM. 

" II. Because the Sacrament of Baptism institutes the 
Church, and then introduces into the Church, for ' Except a 
man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
the Kingdom of God — (John iii. 5) — so it is essentially 
(wesentlicli) Infant Baptism.'-' 

ADULTS RECEIVE IT AS INFANTS. 

"Again, the adult candidate for Baptism cannot be con- 
sidered as an independent personality, with reference to the 
Redemption and the Kingdom of God. All his independence 
is, when confronted with Baptism, a greatness which van- 
ishes away. He, who is about to be born into the new 
world of Christianity, descends to the level of the child. But 
in consequence of this very fact, that the Sacrament of Bap- 
tism lays hold of man before he can independently lay hold 
of it, it proves by the efficacy of preventing Grace its sacra- 
mental nature." 



NOT GENUINE TROTESTANTISAI. 175 



GROUND OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

" By virtue of tliat need of Redemption innate in the child, 
it longs, indeed, for sacramental union with God, but it is 
conscious of no impulse of the will directed towards that 
union, still less does it exhibit a manifestation of the will : 
therefore Infant Baptism is not a proceeding conditional on 
the individual's choice. The child does not make the elec- 
tion at his own direction, but is, in the first instance, elected : 
thus the Church intervenes, in order to oppose the atomism 
(der Atomistik) of sectarian Baptism." 

SACRAMENTAL PREDESTINATION. 

" III. By this denial of self-actuated volition, Baptism 
exhibits itself in a striking manner, as the Sacrament of Pre- 
destination. Sacramental Predestination consists in this, that 
the child does not exhibit itself as the subject, but is treated 
as the vessel of Grace — as the material (als die creaturliche 
Stoffe ) out of which Christ will form a work. In Baptism 
it is Christ who assimilates to himself the natural man, in 
order, at a later period, in the Holy Communion, to cause 
Himself to be assimilated by man, through the means of 
faithful participation. But the child appears, at the same 
time, in Baptism, as the subject in which the beginning is 
made. Therefore, this effectual objective predestination is 
not complete, for from the election of grace in Baptism 
springs the call of grace to liberty. Our election stands fast 
through Baptism : the development of the fruit of Baptism, 
the appointed use of the gift of grace is, however, conditional 
on watching and prayer, on the living in communion, and on 
the Holy Supper. Sacramental Predestination is of a speci- 
fic and more intimate nature, in opposition to that universal 
predestination, according to which God wills that assistance 
should be given to all men. Between the former and the 



176 PURITANIC! 

latter there exists the same relation as between the Word 
which has become flesh, and the same Word which existed 
in the beginning. But what sacramental predestination is to 
the succeeding Christians, such was the original authoritative 
faith (Autoritatsglaube) for the original disciples, which es- 
sentially consists in this, that they did not make their choice, 
but were chosen — that they were embraced before they could 
embrace it. In our time it is particularly important to draw 
attention to the deep import of authoritative faith" 

HOW DISTINGUISHED FROM CALVINISTIC AND ARMINIAN PREDES- 
TINATION. 

" Hence this sacramental predestination has for its oppo- 
site extremes, on the one side the fatalist, i. e. the Calvinistic 
particular election ; and on the other, the Pelagian predesti- 
nation, accerding to which the subject predestinates itself. 
The Apocatastasis also, (i. e. the restoration of all moral 
beings to a life of bliss in God,) rests on the very same point 
as the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination which is opposed 
to it — namely, on that natural necessity to which, according 
to both doctrines, moral beings are subjected. The Apoca- 
tastasis has only this advantage, that it invests with the 
form of unity the Calvinistic dualism — that separation be- 
tween the happy and the condemned already decreed 
from the beginning. According to the doctrine of sacramen- 
tal predestination, however, happiness alone has been be- 
stowed thetically — i. e. by virtue of original determination, 
while there is no decree of condemnation ; w T hich latter can, 
however, follow hypothetically, or, in other words, possibly. 
Nay, condemnation is to be regarded as a necessary hypoth- 
esis — in other words, as an unavoidable possibility — inasmuch 
as baptismal grace contains in itself no final, no magical, no 
doomed predestination. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 177 

SACRAMENT OF REGENERATION. 

11 IV. If the Sacrament of Infant Baptism contain, in the 
full meaning of the words, not alone the call, but also the 
election — without any prejudice, be it observed, to the free- 
dom of the subject — it is also, at the same time, the Laver 
of Regeneration, in which the baptized * put on Christ.' 
Thus we read in the holy Scripture ; thus too Reason 
confesses when enlightened by Faith. Baptism is the 
Act, whereby Christ imparts to the child (undoubtedly in a 
sacramental manner) his icill, which confers justification on 
man. Through Baptism the child is really a participator in 
the righteousness of Christ, as the substantial, fruitful prin- 
ciple of a new life in the general community. 5 ' 

justification communicated in baptism, received by faith. 

" It is to be carefully remarked, that the gracious will of 
God in Christ is the principle of all justification, the com- 
munication of which takes place through Baptism, the recep- 
tion of which takes place through Faith. Thus it remains 
an unalterable fact, that it is Faith alone which justifies the 
sinner, and attains to regeneration ; but it is precisely in Bap- 
tism that this Faith, on, and through, and in Christ, is sac- 
ramentally received, according to its essence and according 
to its substance. Therefore, even Luther, the preacher of 
justification through Faith only, says in his larger Catechism, 
1 Undoubtedly Faith alone makes happy : but the blind will 
not see this, that Faith must have something which it can 
believe, which actually exists, and on which it may fasten 
and take its stand. Now Faith depends on the water, and 
believes that Baptism is that in which there is nought but 
bliss and life ; not, indeed, by virtue of the water itself, but 
through this, that it is incorporated with God's word and 
ordinance, and that His name cleaves thereto. If I now 
9 



178 PURITANISM 

believe this fact, on what else do I believe than on God, as 
on Him who has herein given and planted His word, and 
proffers to us this outward thing, whereby we can lay hold of 
such a treasure? But now men are so beside themselves 
that they separate from each other the Faith, and the thing 
on which Faith fastens itself, and to which it is bound, albeit 
that thing is external/ 

NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 

" By these principles we at once answer the question, ' Is 
Baptism necessary for salvation ? ' Here is the reply : Bap- 
tism, as the Sacrament by which Christ is made (angee ; g- 
net) the Christian's own, is Christianity itself; but, otherwise 
than through Christ, none can come to God. It is also 
the appointed rule , that this Sacrament should be adminis- 
tered through water and the Word. Even Paul caused 
himself to be baptized, (Acts ix. 19,) and his sins to be washed 
away (Acts xxii. 16.) And the Apostles, who had 'seen, 
heard, looked on, handled ' Jesus in the form of a servant* 
were in the strictest sense baptized, ordained, predestinated, 
purified, through the means of water, by the Word of Life, 
by the personal Sacrament, by the Word in the Flesh (John 
xiii. 10 ;) they were elected by the Word, (John xv. 3,) with- 
out having made their own election, (John xv. 16,) and at 
last were filled with the Spirit (Acts ii. 4.) Since that pe- 
riod Baptism in water and the Word is sacramental initiation, 
(Acts ii. 41.)" 

ITS CAUSE. 

" The rule, however, does not exclude the exceptions. He 
who comes to the Faith, has either been already baptized, or 
will still receive, or, at any rate, desire Baptism, in order to 
be engrafted into the body of the Lord, for Christianity is no 
private matter. But he who does not believe — that is, who 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 179 

does not accept the grace actually offered to him — that man, 
be he baptized or not, is condemned By these principles, 
likewise, the Baptism of necessity* is justified, and every 
neglect of it is a transgression of the ordinance of the Church. 
It is the ordinance and rule, that they to whom the command 
has been given should not depend on exceptions which con- 
cern not them, but the Lord alone. The notion of the pos- 
sibility of infinitely numerous and different means of grace 
can possess only a dialectical validity within the reality of 
the ordained economy of Revelation, and on the presupposi- 
tion of the necessity of its means of grace. Thus the truth 
of the Baptism of necessity (Nothtaufe) lies midway between 
the extremes of an unconditional necessity of the sensuous 
act, and the freedom of that spiritual Baptism maintained by 
the Baptists. So it is also, to regard the matter through the 
bare medium of sense, (ist es auch eine baare Sinnlichkeit,) 
when the super-sensuous Idealists do not acknowledge in 
the sensuous act of the Sacrament God's invisible Being : 
but it is also a using of the bare medium of sense, when the 
Realists regard God's invisible Being as materially united to 
it. Christ obliges us to it — this is the reply to the super- 
sensuous Idealists : but not Himself — this is the reply to the 
material Realists." 

OBJECTIVE CONFESSION OF FAITH IN BAPTISM. 

" V. For this reason Faith belongs to the child in the con- 
gregation, through Baptism. For this reason the Apostolic 
Confession of Faith is proposed to the Sponsors as the Faith 
of the child, in order to their professing it on its behalf. For 
this very reason the mystical union of the community exhi- 

* Baptism of necessity is given as the translation of the technical 
phrase die Nothtaufe, i. e. Baptism performed, in cases of urgency, by 
females or laymen, a practice allowed by the Lulherang. 



180 PURITANISM 

bits itself in Baptism, in the child who is incorporated in the 
community ; and this organic uniting of all the members into 
one body, is also in Baptism the blessing of communion, 
in contraposition to which all separation appears atomistic. 
But for this reason, also, Baptism, as a Sacrament, is com- 
pleted objectively by means of the administration, and re- 
quires, as the Act of Christ, no further completion, but, 
merely that it be developed in the subject on whom it has 
been bestowed. Therefore, Confirmation is neither a comple- 
tion, nor even a ratification of Baptism, but merely a rati- 
fication of its subjective development in the child." 

SUBJECTIVE IN CONFIRMATION. 

" Hence, therefore, Confirmation is for the subject of no 
less importance. It certainly possesses, at different periods of 
the Church, different degrees of importance ; while Baptism, 
regarded in its sacramental character, remains always iden- 
tical with itself: but although Confirmation does not move 
precisely parallel with the Sacrament, it is, nevertheless, 
when regarded as an acknowledgment on the part of the 
subject of the Baptism administered to him, and as an ac- 
count which the subject gives of it in the presence of the 
congregation, at all times of great (in times like ours of the 
very greatest) importance. For at present there has arisen 
among very many members of the Christian Church a wide 
opposition, a mighty separation, between Baptism and the 
subjective Confession. And yet even they have been bap- 
tized who have fallen from their baptismal vow." 

CATECHUMENS. 

In the case of such persons, Baptism is not wanting, but 
Confirmation is. The Church, therefore, may not give up 
her baptized, but she must regard them as catechumens — 
as such persons who, either through the fault of the Church 



XOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM 131 

herself have not preserved their Christian illumination, or 
who have made themselves under age [umnundig] in an 
ecclesiastical sense. Such persons are to be regarded as 
baptized, but in an unconfirmed point of view. They are 
baptized catechumens — baptized, because they have been 
baptized once for all by Water and the Word — unconfirmed^ 
(however solemnly they may have been confirmed a long 
or a short time ago," because they do not profess their Bap- 
tism, and consequently are to be regarded as catechumens 
afterwards, as well as before, who require the particular care 
of the Church ; and to this care belongs especially catecheti- 
cal and apologetical instruction." 

DR. HENGSTENBERG's COMMENT. 

" The Sacrament of holy Baptism reminds us once more 
of the mystery of the organism in which the Church subsists. 
This organism of the Church, and the Sacrament of Bap- 
tism, stand in such a mutual relationship, that the one can- 
not exist without the other. From the organism of the 
general congregation the Sacrament of Baptism proceeds : 
the Sacrament in its turn, it is, which founds the organism 
in every new member, while it incorporates the latter in the 
former: in the next place, the Church itself; and this, we 
repeat, is the organic body whose head is Christ as the God- 
Man : but the head is not merely the object, it is also the 
organic head of the body. Therefore, the more unadorned 
faith on the God-Man — that only treasure — shall come to 
life and to consciousness among our contemporaries, with 
so much the more vitality shall the mystery of the organism 
of Christ again wake up — that mystery now almost effaced 
from the consciousness of the community, and which has 
become a stranger not to the infidel alone, but even to the 
private Christian. By means of such a revival of the Church, 
considered as the Body, both the individual who administers 



182 PURITANISM 

the Sacrament as the organ, and as the ordained servant of 
the Church, as well as the sponsors as members of the col- 
lective body, would arrive at their true position, as well with 
reference to the mystery of that organism, as also, in an 
especial degree, to the Sacrament itself : for out of that 
organism alone does the Sacrament of Baptism, in its full 
and real importance, disclose and expand itself as * the en- 
trance into all divine blessings, and into the Communion of 
Saints.' " 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 183 



NOTE D. 

The following correspondence, relating to a period upon 
which Mr. Hall has dwelt at much length, will be read 
with interest by all. It is the state of things as viewed by 
the parties themselves. We thought it better to permit the 
men of that age to tell their own story for themselves, than 
to make a formal answer to such a tissue of absurdities as 
Mr. Hall has penned concerning the men of those times. 

In 1646, Charles I. fled from Oxford, and took refuge 
with the Scottish army, then at Newark, and afterwards 
was conducted by them to Newcastle. Clarendon, in his 
History, &c, vol. III. p. 31, gives the following account of 
the circumstances connected with these papers : 

" Then they employed their Alexander Henderson, and 
their other clergy, to persuade the King to consent to 
the extirpation of Episcopacy in England, as he had in 
Scotland; and it was, and is still believed, that if his 
Majesty could have been induced to have satisfied them 
in that particular, they would either have had a party in 
the Parliament at Westminster to have been satisfied there- 
with, or that they would thereupon have declared for the 
King, and have presently joined with the loyal party in all 
places for his Majesty's defence. 

" But the King was too conscientious to buy his peace at 
so prophane and sacrilegious a price as was demanded, and 
he was so much too hard for Mr. Henderson in the argu- 
mentation, (which appears by the papers that passed between 
them, which were shortly after communicated to the world,) 
that the old man himself was so far convinced, and con- 
verted, that he had a very deep sense of the mischief he 
had himself been the author of, or too much contributed too, 
and lamented it to his nearest friends, and confidents, and 



184 PURITANISM 

died of grief, and heart-broken, within a very short time 
after he departed from his Majesty." 

Papers which passed between his majesty charles i. 
and mr. alexander henderson, concerning the change 
of church government. 

At Newcastle, 1646. 

I. His Majesty's First Paper for Mr. Alexander 
Henderson. 

Mr. Henderson, — I know very well what a great dis- 
advantage it is for me, to maintain an argument of divinity 
with so able and learned a man as yourself, it being your, 
not my profession ; which really was the cause that made 
me desire to hear some learned man argue my opinion with 
you, of whose abilities I might be confident that I should 
not be led into an error, for want of having all which could 
be said laid open unto me. For, indeed, my humour is 
such, that I am still partial for that side which I imagine 
suffers for the weakness of those that maintain it, always 
thinking that equal champions would cast the balance on 
the other part. Yet, since that you (thinking that it will 
save time) desire to go another way, I shall not contest 
with you in it, but treating you as my physician, give you 
leave to take your own way of cure ; only I thought fit to 
warn you, lest if you (not I) should be mistaken in this, you 
would be fain (in a manner) to begin anew. 

Then know that from my infancy I was blest with the 
king my father's love, which, I thank God, was an invalu- 
able happiness to me, all his days ; and among all his cares 
for my education, his chief was, to settle me right in reli- 
gion ; in the true knowledge of which he made himself so 
eminent to all the world, that I am sure none can call in 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 185 

question the brightness of his fame in that particular, with- 
out showing their own ignorant base malice. He it was 
who laid in me the grounds of Christianity, which to this 
day I have been constant in. So that whether the worthi- 
ness of my instructor be considered, or the not few years 
that I have been settled in my principles, it ought to be no 
strange thing, if it be found no easy work to alter them ; 
and the rather, that hitherto I have (according to St. Paul's 
rule, Rom. xiv. 22.) been happy in not condemning myself 
in that thing which I allow. Thus having shewed you 
how, it remains to tell you what I believe, in relation to 
these present miserable distractions. 

No one thing made me more reverence the reformation 
of my mother, the Church of England, than that it was 
done (according to the apostle's defence, Acts, xxiv. 18,) 
" neither with multitude nor with tumult," but legally and 
orderly, and by those whom I conceive to have the reform- 
ing power ; which, with many other inducements, made me 
always confident that the work was very perfect as to essen- 
tials ; of which number church government being undoubt- 
edly one, I put no question but that would have been like- 
wise altered if there had been cause. Which opinion of 
mine was soon turned into more than a confidence, when I 
perceived that in this particular (as I must say of all the 
rest) we retained nothing, but according as it was deduced 
from the apostles to be the constant universal custom of the 
primitive church ; and that it was of sueh consequence, as 
by the alteration of it we should deprive ourselves of a law- 
ful priesthood ; and then, how the sacraments can be duly 
administered is easy to judge. These are the principal rea- 
sons which make me believe that bishops are necessary for a 
church, and, I think, sufficient for me (if I had no more) 
not to give my consent for their expulsion out of England. 
But I have another obligation, that to my particular is a no 
9* 



186 PURITANISM 

less tie of conscience, which is, my coronation oath. Now 
if (as St. Paul saith, Rom. xiv. 23,) " He that doubt eth is 
damned, if he eat," what can I expect, if I should not only 
give way knowingly to my people's sinning, but likewise be 
perjured myself? 

Now consider, ought I not to keep myself from presump- 
tuous sins? and you know who says, " What doth it profit a 
man, though he should gain the whole world, and lose his 
own soul V Wherefore my constant maintenance of Epis- 
pacy in England, (where there was never any other govern- 
ment since Christianity was in this kingdom,) methinks, 
should be rather commended than wondered at, my con- 
science directing me to maintain the laws of the land ; 
which being only my endeavours at this time, I desire to 
know of you, what warrant there is in the word of God for 
subjects to endeavour to force their king's conscience, or to 
make him alter laws against his will. If this be not my 
present case, I shall be glad to be mistaken ; or if my judg- 
ment in religion hath been misled all this time, I shall be 
willing to be better directed ; till w T hen, you must excuse me 
to be constant to the grounds which the king my father 
taught me. C. R. 

Newcastle, May 29, 1646. 

II. Mr. Alexander Henderson's First Paper for His 
Majesty. 

Sir, — It is your majesty's royal goodness, and not my 
merit, that hath made your majesty to conceive any opinion 
of my abilities, which (were they worthy of the smallest 
testimony from your majesty) ought in all duty to be im- 
proved for your majesty's satisfaction. And this I intended 
in my coming here at this time, by a free, yet modest, 
expression of the true motives and inducements which drew 
my mind to the dislike of Episcopal government, wherein I 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM:. 187 

was bred in my younger years in the university. Likeas, I 
did apprehend, that it was not your majesty's purpose to 
have the question disputed by divines on both sides, which I 
would never (to the wronging of the cause) have undertaken 
alone, and which seldom or never hath proved an effectual 
way for finding of truth, or moving the minds of men to 
relinquish their former tenets, Dum res transit a judicio in 
effectum ; witness the polemicks between the Papists and us, 
and among ourselves about the matter now in hand, these 
many years past. 

1. Sir, when I consider your majesty's education under 
the hand of such a father, the length of time wherein your 
majesty hath been settled in your principles of church gov- 
ernment, the arguments which have continually, in private 
and public, especially of late at Oxford, filled your majesty's 
ears for the divine right thereof, your coronation oath, and 
divers state reasons which your majesty doth hot mention, 
I do not wonder, nor think it any strange thing, that your 
majesty hath not at first given place to a contrary impres- 
sion. I remember that the famous Joannes Picus Mirandula 
proveth, by irrefragable reasons (which no rational man will 
contradict) " That no man hath so much power over his 
own understanding, as to make himself believe that he will, 
or to think that to be true which his reason telleth him is 
false ; much less is it possible for any man to have his rea- 
son commanded by the will or at the pleasure of another." 

2. It is a true saying of the schoolmen, Voluntas imperat 
intellectui quoad exercitium, non quoad specificationem ; 
mine own will, or the will of another, may command me to 
think upon a matter, but no will or command can constrain 
me to determine otherwise than my reason teacheth me. 
Yet, Sir, I hope your majesty will acknowledge (for your 
paper professeth no less) that, according to the saying of 
Ambrose, Non est pudor ad meliora transire, it is neither 



1 88 PURITANISM 

sin nor shame to change to the better. Symmachus, in one 
of his epistles, (I think to the emperors Theodosius and 
Valentinian,) allegeth all those motives from education, from 
prescription of time, from worldly prosperity, and the flour- 
ishing condition of the Roman empire, and from the laws of 
the land, to persuade them to constancy in the ancient 
Pagan profession of the Romans, against the embracing of 
the Christian faith. The like reasons were used by the 
Jews for Moses against Christ, and may be used both for 
Popery and for the Papacy itself against the reformation of 
religion and church government, and therefore can have no 
more strength against the change now than they had in for- 
mer times. 

3. But your majesty may perhaps say, that this is petit io 
principii, and nothing else but the begging of the question ; 
and I confess it were so, if there can be no reasons brought 
for a reformation or change. Your majesty reverences the 
reformation of the Church of England, as being done legally 
and orderly, and by those who had the reforming power ; 
and I do not deny but it were to be wished that religion, 
where there is need, were always reformed in that manner, 
and by such power, and that it were not committed to the 
prelates, who have greatest need to be reformed themselves, 
nor left to the multitude, whom God stirreth up when princes 
are negligent. Thus did Jacob reform his own family, 
Moses destroy the golden calf, the good kings of Judah 
reform the church in their time ; but that such reformation 
hath been perfect I cannot admit. Asa took away idolatry, 
but his reformation was not perfect ; for Jehosaphat removed 
the high places, yet was not his reformation perfect ; for it 
was Hezekiah that brake the brazen serpent, and Josiah de- 
stroyed the idol temples, who therefore beareth this eulogy, 
that like unto him there was no king before him. It is too 
well known that the reformation of King Henry VIII. was 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 189 

most imperfect in the essentials of doctrine, worship, and 
government ; and although it proceeded by some degrees 
afterwards, yet the government was never reformed ; the 
head was changed, dominus non dominium, and the whole 
limbs of the antichristian hierarchy retained, upon what 
snares and temptations of avarice and ambition, the great 
enchanters of the clergy, I need not express. It was a 
hard saying of Romanorum Malleus, Grosthed of Lincoln, 
that reformation was not to be expected, nisi in ore gladii 
cruentandi. Yet this I may say, that the Laodicean luke- 
warmness of reformation here hath been matter of continued 
complaints to many of the godly in this kingdom ; occasion 
of more schism and separation than ever was heard of in 
any other church, and of unspeakable grief and sorrow to 
other churches, which God did bless with greater purity of 
reformation. The glory of this great work we hope is re- 
served for your majesty, that to your comfort and everlast- 
ing fame the praise of godly Josiah may be made yours ; 
which yet will be no dispraise to your royal father, or Ed- 
ward the VI. or any other religious princes before you ; none 
of them having so fair an opportunity as is now, by the 
supreme Providence, put into your royal hands. My soul 
trembleth to think and to foresee what may be the event, if 
this opportunity be neglected. I will neither use the 
words of Mordecai, (Esth. iv. 14,) nor what Savonarola told 
another Charles, because I hope better things from your 
majesty. 

4. To the argument brought by your majesty, (which I 
believe none of your doctors, had they been all about you, 
could more briefly, and yet so fully and strongly, have ex- 
pressed,) " That nothing was retained in this church but 
according as it was deduced from the apostles to be the con- 
stant universal practice of the primitive church ; and that it 
was of such consequence, as by the alteration of it we 



190 PURITANISJI. 

should deprive ourselves of the lawfulness of priesthood, (I 
think your majesty means a lawful ministry ;) and then how 
the sacraments can be administered is easy to judge." I 
humbly offer these considerations : — First, What was not in 
the times of the apostles, cannot be deduced from them. 
We say in Scotland, " It cannot be brought but, that is not 
the ben :" but (not to insist now on a liturgy, and things of 
that kind,) there was no such hierarchy, no such difference 
betwixt a bishop and a presbyter in the times of the apos- 
tles, and therefore it cannot hence be deduced: for I con- 
ceive it to be as clear as if it were written with a sunbeam, 
that presbyter and bishop are to the apostles one and the 
same thing ; no majority, no inequality or difference of office, 
power, or degree, betwixt the one and the other, but a mere 
identity in all. Second, That the apostles intending to set 
down the offices and officers of the church, and speaking so 
often of them, and of their gifts and duties, and that not 
upon occasion, but of set purpose, do neither express nor 
imply any such pastor or bishop as hath power over other 
pastors ; although it be true, that they have distinctly and 
particularly expressed the office, gifts, and duties of the 
meanest officers, such as deacons. Third, That in the min- 
istry of the New Testament, there is a comely, beautiful, 
and divine order and subordination ; one kind of ministers, 
both ordinary and extraordinary, being placed in degree and 
dignity before another, as the apostles first, the evangelists, 
pastors, doctors, &c, in their own ranks ; but we cannot 
find, in offices of the same kind, that one had majority of 
power, or priority of degree, before another ; no apostle 
above other apostles, (unless in moral respects,) no evange- 
list above other evangelists, or deacon above other deacons : 
why then a pastor above other pastors ? In all other sorts 
of ministers, ordinary and extraordinary, a parity in their 
own kind, only in the office of pastor an inequality. Fourth, 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 191 

That the whole power, and all the parts of the ministry, 
which are commonly called the power of order and jurisdic- 
tion, are by the apostles declared to be common to the 
presbyter and bishop ; and that (Mat. xviii. 15, 16, 17,) 
the gradation in matter of discipline or church censures, 
is from one to two or more ; and " if he shall neglect them, 
tell it to the church:" he saith not, tell it to the bishop; 
there is no place left to a retrogradation from more to one, 
were he never so eminent. If these considerations do not 
satisfy, your majesty may have more, or the same farther 
cleared. 

5. Secondly, I do humbly desire your majesty to take 
notice of the fallacy of that argument, from the practice of 
the primitive church, and the universal consent of the 
fathers. It is the argument of the Papists for such tradi- 
tions as no orthodox divine will admit. The law and testi- 
mony must be the rule. We can have no certain knowledge 
of the practice universal of the church for many years : 
Eusebius, the prime historian, confesseth so much ; the 
learned Josephus Scaliger testifieth, that from the end of the 
Acts of the Apostles until a good time after, no certainty 
can be had from ecclesiastical authors about church matters. 
It is true, Diotrephes sought the preeminence in the apostles' 
times, and the mystery of iniquity did then begin to work ; 
and no doubt in after times, some puffed up with ambition, 
and others overtaken with weakness, endeavoured alteration 
of church government ; but that all the learned and godly 
of those times consented to such a change as is talked of 
alerwards, will never be proved. 

6. Th'rdly, I will never think that your majesty will deny 
the lawfulness of a ministry, and the due administration of 
the sacraments in the reformed churches which have no dio- 
cesan bishops, sith it is not only manifest by Scripture, but 
a great many of the strongest ckampions for Episcopacy 



192 PURITANISM 

do confess, that presbyters may ordain other presbyters ; 
and that baptism administered by a private person, wanting 
a public calling, or by a midwife, and by a presbyter, 
although not ordained by a bishop, are not one and the same 
thing. 

7. Concerning the other argument taken from your ma- 
jesty's coronation oath, I confess that both in the taking and 
keeping of an oath (so sacred a thing is it, and so high a 
point of religion) much tenderness is required : and far be It 
from us, who desire to observe our own solemn oath, to press 
your majesty with the violation of yours. Yet, Sir, I will 
crave your leave, in all humbleness and sincerity, to lay be- 
fore your majesty's eyes this one thing, (which, perhaps, 
might require a larger discourse,) that although no human 
authority can dispense with an oath, quia religio juramenti 
pertinet ad forum divinum; yet, in some cases, it cannot 
be denied but the obligation of an oath ceaseth, as when we 
swear homage and obedience to our lord and superior, who 
afterwards ceaseth to be our lord and superior ; for then the 
formal cause of the oath is taken away, and therefore the 
obligation, sublatd causa tollitur effectus, sublato relato tol- 
litur correlatum : or when any oath hath a special reference 
to the benefit of those to whom I make the promise, if we 
have their desire or consent, the obligation ceaseth ; because 
all such oaths, from the nature of the thing, do include a 
condition. When the Parliaments of both kingdoms have 
covenanted for the abolishing or altering of a law, your ma- 
jesty's oath doth not bind you or your conscience to the 
observing of it ; otherwise, no laws could be altered by the 
legislative power. This I conceive hath been the ground of 
removing Episcopal government in Scotland, and of remov- 
ing the bishops out of the Parliament of England. And I 
assure myself that your majesty did not intend, at the taking 
of your oath, that although both houses of Parliament should 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 193 

find an alteration necessary, although (which God Almighty- 
avert !) you should lose yourself and your posterity and 
crown, that you would never consent to the abolishing of 
such a law. If your majesty still object, " that the matter 
of the oath is necessary and immutable ;" that doth not be- 
long to this, but to the former argument. 

8. I have but one word more concerning your piety to 
your royal father and teacher, of happy memory, with 
which your majesty does conclude. Your majesty knows 
that King James never admitted Episcopacy upon divine 
right ; that his majesty did swear and subscribe to the doc- 
trine, worship, and discipline of the Church of Scotland ; 
that in the preface of the latter edition of Basilicon Doron, 
his majesty gives an honourable testimony of those that 
loved better the simplicity of the gospel than the pomp and 
ceremonies of the Church of England, and that he con- 
ceived the prelates to favour the Popish hierarchy ; and that 
(could his ghost now speak to your majesty) he would not 
advise your majesty to run such hazards for those men who 
will choose rather to pull down your throne with their own 
ruin, than that they perish alone. The Lord give your ma- 
jesty a wise and discerning spirit to choose that in time 
which is right ! 

June 3, 1646. 

III. His Majesty's Second Paper for Mr. Alexander 
Henderson. A reply to his Answer to my First Paper. 

June 6, 1646. 
Mr. Henderson, — If it had been the honour of the cause 
which I looked after, I would not have undertaken to put 
pen to paper, or singly to have maintained this argument 
against you, whose answer to my former paper is sufficient, 
without farther proofs, to justify my opinion of your abilities ; 
but it being merely (as you know) for my particular satisfac- 



194 PURITAXISM 

tion, I assure you that a disputation of well chosen divines 
would be most effectual ; and, I believe, you cannot but 
grant that I must best know how myself may be best satis- 
fied, for certainly my taste cannot be guided by another 
man's palate ; and indeed I will say that when it comes (as 
it must) to probations, I must have either persons or books to 
clear the allegations, or it will be impossible to give me satis- 
faction. The foreseeing of which made me at first (for the 
saving of time) desire that some of those divines which I 
gave you in a list might be sent for. 

2. Concerning your second section, I were much to blame 
if I should not submit to that saying of St. Ambrose which 
you mention, for I would be unwilling to be found less in- 
genuous than you shew yourself to be in the former part of 
it ; wherefore my reply is, that as I shall not be ashamed to 
change for the better, so I must see that it is better before I 
change, otherwise, inconstancy in this were both sin and 
shame, and remember (what yourself hath learnedly en- 
forced,) that " no man's reason can be commanded by an- 
other man's will." 

3. Your third begins, but I cannot say that it goes on 
with that ingenuity which the other did ; for I do not under- 
stand how those examples cited out of the old Testament, 
do any way prove that the way of reformation which I 
commend hath not been the most perfect, or that any other 
is lawful, those having been all by the regal authority ; and 
because Henry VIII.'s reformation was not perfect, will it 
prove that of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth to be im- 
perfect ? I believe a new mood and figure must be found 
out to form a syllogism whereby to prove that. But, how- 
ever, you are mistaken ; for no man who truly understands 
the English reformation will derive it from Henry VIII., for 
he only gave the occasion ; it was his son who began, and 
Queen Elizabeth that perfected it. Nor did I ever aver that 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 195 

the beginning of any human action was perfect, no more 
than you can prove " that God hath ever given approbation 
to multitudes to reform the negligence of princes," for you 
know there is much difference between permission and ap- 
probation. But all this time I find no reasons (according to 
your promise) for a reformation or change, (I mean since 
Queen Elizabeth's time.) As for your Romanorum Malleus 
his saying, it is well you come off it with, " yet this I may 
say ;" for it seems to imply, as if you neither ought nor 
would justify that bloody ungodly saying : and for your 
comparing our reformation here to the Laodicean lukewarm- 
ness, proved by complaints, grievings, &c, all that doth and 
but unhandsomely petere principium ; nor can generals 
satisfy me ; for you must first prove that those men had 
reason to complain, those churches to be grieved, and 
how we were truly the causes of this schism and separation. 
As for those words which you will not use, I will not an- 
swer. 

4. Here, indeed, you truly repeat the first of my two 
main arguments ; but by your favour, you take (as I con- 
ceive) a wrong way to convince me : It is I must make 
good the affirmative, for I believe a negative cannot be 
proved. Instead of which, if you had made appear the 
practice of the Presbyterian government in the primitive 
times, you had done much ; for I do aver that this gov- 
ernment was never practised before Calvin's time, the 
affirmative of which I leave you to prove, my task being to 
shew the lawfulness and succession of Episcopacy, and, as 
I believe, the necessity of it. For doing whereof I must 
have such books as I shall call for, which possibly upon 
perusal may, one way or other, give me satisfaction ; but I 
cannot absolutely promise it without the assistance of some 
learned man, whom I can trust, to find out all such cita- 
tions as I have use of; wherefore blam» me not if time be 
unnecessarily lost. 



196 PURITANISM 

5. Now for the fallaciousness of my argument, (to my 
knowledge,) it was never my practice, nor do I confess to 
have begun now. For if the practice of the primitive 
church, and the universal consent of the fathers, be not a 
convincing argument, when the interpretation of Scripture 
is doubtful, I know nothing ; ^or if this be not, then of neces- 
sity the interpretation of private spirits must be admitted ; 
the which contradicts St. Peter, (2 Pet. i. 20.) is the mother 
of all sects, and will (if not prevented) bring these kingdoms 
into confusion. And to say that an argument is ill because 
the Papists use it, or that such a thing is good because it is 
the custom of some of the reformed churches, cannot weigh 
with me, until you prove these to be infallible, or that to 
maintain no truth. And how Diotrephes' ambition, (who 
directly opposed the apostle St. John) can be an argument 
against Episcopacy, I do not understand. 

6. When I am made a judge over the reformed churches, 
then, and not before, will I censure their actions ; as you 
must prove before I confess it, " that presbyters without a 
bishop may lawfully ordain other presbyters." And as for 
the administration of baptism, as I think none will say that 
a woman can lawfully or duly administer it, though when 
done it be valid ; so none ought to do it but a lawful presby- 
ter, whom you cannot deny but to be absolutely necessary 
for the sacrament of the eucharist. 

7. You make a learned succinct discourse of oaths in gen- 
eral, and their several obligations, to which I fully agree ; 
intending in the particular now in question, to be guided by 
your own rule, which is, " when any oath hath a special 
reference to the benefits of those to whom I make the prom- 
ise, if we have their desire or consent, the obligation ceaseth." 
Now, it must be known to whom this oath hath reference, and 
to whose benefit. The answer is clear, only to the Church 
of England, as by ike record will be plainly made appear. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 197 

And you much mistake in alleging that the two houses of 
Parliament, especially as they are now constituted, can 
have this disobligatory power ; for (besides they are not named 
in it) I am confident to make it clearly appear to you, that 
this church never did submit nor was subordinate to them, 
and that it was only the king and clergy who m&h the 
reformation, the Parliament merely serving to help to give 
the civil sanction. All this being proved (of which I 
make no question) it must necessarily follow, that it is 
only the Church of England, in whose favour I took this 
oath, that can release me from it ; wherefore, when the 
Church of England, being lawfully assembled, shall de- 
clare that I am free, then, and not before, shall I esteem 
myself so. 

8. To your last, concerning the king my father, of happy 
and famous memory, both for his piety and learning, I must 
tell you, that I had the happiness to know him much better 
than you ; wherefore I desire you not to be too confident 
in the knowledge of his opinions ; for I dare say, should 
his ghost now speak, he would tell you, " That a bloody 
reformation was never lawful, as not warranted by God's 
word," and that preces et lachrymal sunt arma ecclesice. 

9. To conclude, having replied to all your paper, I can- 
not but observe to you, that you have given me no answer 
to my last query. It may be you are (as Chaucer says) 
like the people of England, " What they not like, they 
never understand ;" but in earnest, that question is so per- 
tinent to the purpose in hand, that it will much serve for 
my satisfaction, and, besides, it may be useful for other 
things. C. R. 

Newcastle, June 6, 1646. 



198 PURITAjTCSM 

IV. Mr. Alexander Henderson's Secold Paper for His 
Majesty. 

Sir, — The smaller the encouragements be in relation to 
the success, (which how small they are your majesty well 
kno\jp,) the more apparent, and, I hope, the more acceptable 
will my obedience be, in that which in all humility I now go 
about at your majesty's command ; yet while I consider that 
the way of the man is not in himself, nor is in man that 
walketh to direct his own steps, and when I remember how 
many supplications, with strong crying and tears, have been 
openly and secretly offered up in your majesty's behalf 
unto God that heareth prayer, I have no reason to despair 
of a blessed success. 

1. I have been averse from a disputation of divines, — 
1st, For the saving of time, which the present exigence 
and extremity of affairs make more than ordinarily precious. 
While Archimedes at Syracuse was drawing his figures and 
circlings in the sand, Marcellus interrupted his demonstration. 
2d, Because the common result of disputes of this kind, 
answerable to the prej udicate opinions of the parties, is rather 
victory than verity ; while tanquam tentativi dialectici, they 
study more to overcome their adverse party than to be over- 
come of truth, although this be the most glorious victory. 
3d, When I was commanded to come hither, no such thing 
was proposed to me nor expected by me ; I never judged so 
meanly of the cause, nor so highly of myself, as to venture 
it upon such weakness. Much more might be spoken to 
this purpose, but I forbear. 

2. I will not farther trouble your majesty with that which 
is contained in the second section, hoping that your majesty 
will no more insist upon education, prescription of time, &c, 
which are sufficient to prevent admiration, but (which your 
majesty acknowledges) must give place to reason, and are 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 199 

no sure ground of resolution of our faith in any point to be 
believed ; although it be true, that the most part of men 
make these and the like to be the ground and rule of their 
faith ; an evidence that their faith is not a divine faith, but 
an human credulity. 

3. Concerning reformation of religion in the third section ; 
I had need have a preface to so thorny a theme as your ma- 
jesty hath brought me upon. 1st, For the reforming power: 
it is conceived, when a general defection, like a deluge, hath 
covered the whole face of the church, so that scarcely the 
tops of the mountains do appear, a general council is neces- 
sary ; but because that can hardly be obtained, several king- 
doms (which we see was done at the time of the Reforma- 
tion) are to reform themselves, and that by the authority of 
their prince and magistrates. If the prince or supreme 
magistrate be unwilling, then may the inferior magistrate 
and the people, being more rightly informed in the grounds 
of religion, lawfully reform within their own sphere ; and if 
the light shine upon all or the major part, they may, after all 
other means essayed, make a public reformation. This be- 
fore this time I never wrote or spoke ; yet the maintainers of 
this doctrine conceive that they are able to make it good. 
But, sir, were I worthy to give advice to your majesty, or to 
the kings and supreme powers on earth, my humble opinion 
would be, that they should draw the minds, tongues, and pens 
of the learned, to dispute about other matter than the power 
or prerogative of kings and princes ; and in this kind your 
majesty hath suffered and lost more than will easily be 
restored to yourself or to your posterity for a long time. It 
is not denied but the prime reforming power is in the kings 
and princes ; quibus dejicientibus, it comes to the inferior 
magistrates; quibus deficientibus, it descendeth to the body 
of the people ; supposing that there is a necessity of refor- 
mation, and that by no means it can be obtained of their 



200 PURITANISM 

superiors. It is true that such a reformation is more imper- 
fect in respect of the instruments and manner of procedure ; 
yet, for the most part, more pure and perfect in relation to 
the effect and product. And for this end did I cite the 
examples of old, of reformation by regal authority ; of which 
none was perfect, in the second way of perfection, except 
that of Josiah. Concerning the saying of Grosthed, whom 
the cardinals at Rome confessed to be a more godly man 
than any of themselves, it was his complaint and prediction 
of what was likely to ensue, not his desire or election if 
reformation could have been obtained in the ordinary way. 
I might bring two impartial witnesses, Juel and Bilson, both 
famous English bishops, to prove that the tumults and trou- 
bles raised in Scotland, at the time of reformation, were to 
be imputed to the Papists opposing of the reformation both 
of doctrine and discipline, as an heretical innovation, and not 
to be ascribed to the nobility or people, who, under God, were 
the instruments of it, intending and seeking nothing, but 
the purging out of error and settling of the truth. 2d, Con- 
cerning the reformation of the Church of England, I con- 
ceive, whether it was begun or not in King Henry VIII.'s 
time, it was not finished by Queen Elizabeth: the father 
stirred the humours of the diseased church ; but neither the 
son nor the daughter (although we have great reason to bless 
God for both) did purge them out perfectly : this perfection is 
yet reserved for your majesty. Where it is said, " that all 
this time I bring no reasons for a further change ;" the 
fourth section of my last paper hath many hints of reasons 
against Episcopal government, with an offer of more, or 
clearing of those ; which your majesty hath not thought fit 
to take notice of. And learned men have observed many 
defects in that reformation ; as, that the government of the 
Church of England (for about this is the question now) is 
not builded upon the foundation of Christ and the apostles, 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 201 

which they at least cannot deny, who profess Church govern- 
ment to be mutable and ambulatory, and such were the 
gteater part of archbishops and bishops in England, content- 
ing themselves with the constitutions of the Church, and 
the authority and munificences of princes, till of late that 
some few have pleaded it to be jure divino : that the Eng- 
lish reformation hath not thoroughly purged out the Roman 
leaven ; which is one of the reasons that hath given ground 
to the comparing of this Church to the Church of Laodicea, 
as being neither hot nor cold, neither Popish nor reformed, 
but of a lukewarm temper betwixt the two ; that it hath 
depraved the discipline of the Church, by conforming of it 
to the civil policy; that it hath added many Church offices, 
higher and lower, unto those instituted by the Son of God, 
which is as unlawful as to take away offices warranted by 
the divine institution ; and other the like, which have 
moved some to apply this saying to the Church of England, 
Multi ad perfectionem pervenirent, nisi jam se pervenisse 
crederent. 

4. In my answer to the first of your majesty's many argu- 
ments, I brought a breviate of some reasons to prove that 
" a bishop and presbyter are one and the same in Scripture ;" 
from which, by necessary consequence, I did infer the nega^ 
tive, therefore no difference, in Scripture, between a bishop 
and a presbyter ; the one name signifying industriam curia 
pastoralis, the other, sapentics maturitatem, saith Beda. 
And whereas your majesty avers, " that Presbyterian gov- 
ernment was never practised before Calvin's time ;" your 
majesty knows the common objection of the Papists against 
the reformed Churches, Where was your Church, your refor- 
mation, your doctrine, before Luther's time ? One part of 
the common answer is, " That it was from the beginning, 
and is to be found in Scripture." The same I affirm of Pres-. 
byterian government. And for the proving of this, the* 
10 



%Q2 PUBITAMSM 

Assembly of Divines at Westminster have made manifest, 
M that the primitive Christian Church at Jerusalem was 
governed by a presbytery:" while they shew, 1st, That the 
Church of Jerusalem consisted of more congregations than 
one, from the multitude of believers, from the many apostles 
and other preachers in that church, aud from the diversity 
of languages among the believers. 2. That ail these con- 
gregations were under one presbyterial government, because 
they were for government one church, (Acts, xi. 22, 26,) 
and because that church was governed by elders, (Acts, xi. 
30,) which were elders of that church, and did meet together 
for acts of government ; and the apostles themselves, in 
that meeting, (Acts, xv.) acted not as apostles, but as elders, 
stating the question, debating it in the ordinary way of dis- 
putation ; and having, by search of Scripture, found the 
will of God, they conclude, " It seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost and us ;" which, in the judgment of the learned, may 
be spoken by any assembly upon like evidence of Scripture. 
The like Presbyterian government had place in the churches 
of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, &c, in the times of the 
apostles ; and after them, for many years, when one of the 
presbyte^ was made episcopus pra'ses, even then Connnuni 
presbyter arum consilio ecclesice, gubernabantar, saith Je- 
rome ; and, Episcopus magis consuetudine quam disposi- 
tionis divines veritate presbyter is esses majores, et in com- 
mune debere ecclesiam r eg ere. 

5. Far be it from me to think such a thought, as that your 
majest3 r did intend any fallacy in your other main argument 
from antiquity. As we are to distinguish between intentio 
operantis et conditio operis, so may we, in this case, con- 
sider the difference between intentio argument ant is et con- 
ditio argumenti. And where your majesty argues, that, if 
your opinion be not admitted, we will be forced to give place 
to the interpretation of private spirits, which is contrary to 



NO DIB PROTEST a 

the doctrine o. -tie Peter, and will prove to be of 

dangerous consequence : I humbly offer to be considered by 
your majesty, what some of chief note among the Papists 
themselves have tan That the interpretation of Scrip- 

lures, and the be called 

pricate in a three:: —1st, Ratione persona, if the 

interpreter be or a private condition; '2\. Ratione modi et 
med. hough not private, use not the public 

means which are n for finding out the truth, but 

follow their owi the inter- 

pret tical to bind others, but is 

intended for c Tht first is not 

to be des] icond is to be exploded, and is con 

demned by the Apostle Peter : tight not to be cen- 

sured : but that interpretation which is :I. and of 

supreme anthoj man's conscience is bound 

to yield unto, is of an higher nature. And although the 
general council should resolve it. and the consent of the 
fathers should be had unto it, yet there must always be pi 
left to the judgment of discretion, as Davenant, late Bishop 
of Salisbury, t here, hath learnedly made ap- 

pear in his b: dice controversiarum ; where also 

the power of kings in matters of religion is solidly and im- 
partially determined TV o words only I add. One is. that 
notwithstanding all that is pretended from antic bishop 

having sole power of ordination and ztion will never 

be found in prime antiquity. T : the 

fathers did, unwittingly, bring forth that A:. 
was conceived in the times of the apostles, and a are 

competent judges in the question erarchy. And 

upon the other part, the lights of the Christian Church at 
and since the beginning of the Reformation, have discovered 
many secrets concerning the Antichrist and his hierar 
which were not kn . nner aofes : and divers of 



204 PURITANISM 

learned in the Roman Church have not feared to pronounce, 
That whosoever denies the true and literal sense of many 
texts of Scripture to have been found out in this last age, is 
unthankful to God, who hath so plentifully poured forth his 
Spirit upon the children of this generation ; and ungrateful 
towards those men who, with so great pains, so happy suc- 
cess, and so much benefit to God's Church, have travailed 
therein. This might be instanced in many places of Scrip- 
ture. I wind together Diotrephes and the mystery of ini- 
quity : the one as an old example of Church ambition, 
which was also too palpable in the apostles themselves, and 
the other as a cover of ambition, afterwards discovered ; 
which two brought forth the great mystery of the Papacy at 
last. 

6. Although your majesty be not made a judge of the 
reformed churches, yet you so far censure them and their 
actions, as without bishops, in your judgment, they cannot 
have a lawful ministry, nor a due administration of the sacra- 
ments. Against which dangerous and destructive opinion, I 
did allege what I supposed your majesty would not have 
denied. 1st, That presbyters without a bishop may ordain 
other presbyters. 2d, That baptism administered by such a 
presbyter, is another thing than baptism administered by a 
private person or by a midwife. Of the first your majesty 
calis for proof. I told before, that in the Scripture it is man- 
ifest, (1 Tim. iv. 14.) w Neglect not the gift that is in thee, 
which was given thee by the prophecy, with the laying on 
of the hands of the presbyter ;" so it is in the English trans- 
lation. And the word presbytery, so often as it is used in 
the New Testament, always signifies the persons, and not 
the office. And although the offices of bishop and presbyter 
were distinct, yet doth not the presbyter derive his power of 
order from the bishop. The evangelists were inferior to the 
apostles ; yet had they their power not from the apostles, but 



1S T 0T GENUINE PROTESTANTISM 205 

from Christ. The same I affirm of the seventy disciples, 
who had their power immediately from Christ, no less than 
the apostles had theirs. It may, upon better reason, be 
averred that the bishops have their power from the Pope, 
than that presbyters have their power from the prelates. It 
is true, Jerome saith, Quid facit, excepta ordinatione, epis- 
copus, quod non facit presbyter ? But in the same place he 
proves from Scripture, that episcopus and presbyter are one 
and the same ; and therefore, when he appropriates ordina- 
tion to the bishop, he speaketh of the degenerated custom 
of his time. Secondly, Concerning baptism, a private per- 
son may perform the external action and rites both of it and 
of the eucharist ; yet is neither of the two a sacrament, or 
hath any efficacy, unless it be done by him that is lawfully 
called thereunto, or by a person made public, and clothed 
with authority by ordination. This error in the matter of 
baptism is begot by another error, of the absolute necessity 
of baptism. 

7. To that which hath been said concerning your majes- 
ty's oath, I shall add nothing, not being willing to enter upon 
the question of the subordination of the Church to the civil 
power, whether the king or parliament, or both, and to 
either of them in their own place. Sueh an headship as the 
kings of England have claimed, and such a supremacy as 
the two Houses of Parliament crave, with the appeals from 
the supreme ecclesiastical judicature to them, as set over the 
Church in the same line of subordination, I do utterly dis- 
claim, upon such reasons as give myself satisfaction ; although 
no man shall be more willing to submit to civil powers, each 
one in their own place, and more unwilling to make any 
trouble, than myself. Only concerning the application of 
the generals of an oath to the particular case now in hand ; 
under favour, I conceive not how the clergy of the Church 
of England is, or ought to be, principally intended in your 



206 PURITANISM 

oath. For although they were esteemed to be the represen- 
tative Church, yet even that is for the benefit of the Church 
collective, salus populi being suprema lex, and to be princi- 
pally intended. Your majesty knows it was so in the 
Church of Scotland, where the like alteration was made. 
And if nothing of this kind can be done without the con- 
sent of the clergy, what reformation can be expected in 
France or Spain, or Rome itself? It is not to be expected 
that the pope or prelates will consent to their own ruin. 

8. I will not presume upon any secret knowledge of the 
opinions held by the king your majesty's father of famous 
memory, they being much better known to your majesty ; 
I did only produce what was professed by him before the 
world. And although prayers and tears be the arms of the 
Church, yet it is neither acceptable to God, nor condueible 
for kings and princes, to force the Church to put on these 
arms. Nor could I ever hear a reason, why a necessary de- 
fensive war against unjust violence is unlawful, although it 
be joined with offence and invasion which is intended for de- 
fence, but so that arms are laid down when the offensive war 
ceaseth ; by which it doth appear that the war on the other 
side was, in the nature thereof, defensive. 

9. Concerning the forcing of conscience, which I preter- 
mitted in my other paper, I am forced now, but without 
forcing of my conscience, to speak of it. Our conscience 
may be said to be forced either by ourselves, or by others. 
By ourselves, 1st, When we stop the ear of our conscience, 
and will not hearken, or give place to information, resolving 
obstinately, Ne si persuaseris, persuadebis ; which is no 
less than a resisting of the Holy Ghost, and the hardening 
of our hearts. 2d, Or when we stop the mouth and sup- 
press the clamours of our conscience ; resolving rather to 

uffer the worm to gnaw, and the fire to burn inwardly, than 
o make profession of that we are convinced to be truth. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 207 

3d, Or when we sear our conscience as with an hot iron, 
that it bccometh senseless, which is the punishment of the 
former ; nnto which is opposed the truly tender conscience, 
such as Josiah had, (2 Kings, xxii. 19.) Again, our con- 
science is said to be forced by others, 1st, When they obtrude 
upon us what is in itself evil and unlawful ; which if we 
admit against our own conscience, we sin two ways : one is, 
by doing that which is in itself evil and unlawful ; the other 
is, by doing it against a dictate of conscience, which is a 
contempt of God, whose vicegerent it is. 2d. Or when 
others urge us to do that which is in itself good, or may 
lawfully be done, but through error of conscience we judge 
it to be evil and unlawful ; in this case, if we do not that 
which is pressed upon us, we sin, because the thing is good 
and lawful ; and if we do it, we sin, because we 'do against 
our conscience, which in this case bindeth, but obligeth not 
And yet there is a way to escape out of this labyrinth, it be- 
ing repugnant to the equity of the will of God to lay a 
necessity of sinning upon any man : the only way is, to lay 
aside such a conscience, it being a part of the old man which 
we are commanded to put off; otherwise, we being suffi- 
ciently informed, and yet cleaving to our old error, we rather 
do violence to our conscience ourselves, than suffer violence 
from others. The application, for answering the query, I 
leave to your majesty. 

Newcastle, June 17, 1G46. 

V. His Majesty's Third Paper for Mr. Alexander 
Henderson, in reply to his Second Paper. 

June 22, 1646. 

1. It were arrogance, besides loss of time, in me to vie 

preambles with you, for it is truth I seek, and neither praise 

nor victory ; wherefore I shall only insist upon those things 

which are merely necessary to my own satisfaction, in order 



208 PURITANISM 

to which I desired the assistance of some divines ; where- 
upon I will insist no farther, save only to wish that you may 
not (as I have known many men do) lose time by being 
mistaken in the way to save it ; wherein I have only sought 
to disburthen myself, but to lay no blame upo.i you, and so 
I leave it. 

2. Xor will I say more of the second than this, that I am 
glad you have so well approved of what I have said con- 
cerning my education and reason ; but then, remember, that 
another man's will is at least as weak a ground to build my 
faith upon as my former education. 

• 3. In this there are two points ; first, concerning the re- 
forming power, then, anent the English reformation. For 
the first, I confess you now speak clearly, which before you 
did but darkly mention, wherein I shall mainly differ with 
you, until you shall shew me better reason. Yet thus far I 
will go along with you, that when a general council cannot 
be had, several kingdoms may reform themselves, which is 
learnedly and fully proved by the late Archbishop of Can- 
terbury in his disputation against Fisher ; but that the infe- 
rior magistrates or people (take it which way you will) have 
this power, I utterly deny ; for which, by your favour, you 
have yet made no sufficient proof to my judgment. Indeed, 
if you could have brought, or can bring authority of Scrip- 
ture for this opinion, I would, and will yet, with all reverence 
submit ; but as for your examples out of the Old Testament, 
in my mind, they rather make for me than against me, all 
those reformations being made by kings : and it is a good 
probable (though I will not say convincing) argument, that 
if God would have approved of a popular reforming way, 
there were kings of Judah and Israel sufficiently negligent 
and ill to have made such examples by ; but, on the con- 
trary, the 16th chapter of Numbers shews clearly how God 
disapproves of such courses. But I forget this assertion is 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 209 

to be proved by you ; yet I may put you in the way : 
wherefore let me tell you that this pretended power in the 
people must (as all others) either be directly or else declara- 
torily by approbation given by God ; which how soon you 
can do, I submit ; otherwise you prove nothing. For the 
citing of private men's opinions (more than as they concur 
with the general consent of the Church in their time) weighs 
little with me, it being too well known, that rebels never 
wanted writers to maintain their unjust actions ; and though 
I much reverence Bishop Juel's memory, I never thought 
him infallible. For Bilson, I remember well what opinion 
the king my father had of him for those opinions, and how 
he shewed him some favour in hope of his recantation, (as 
his good nature made him do many things of that kind ;) 
but whether he did or not, I cannot say. To conclude this 
point, until you shall prove this position by the word of God, 
(as I will regal authority,) I shall think all popular reforma- 
tion little better than rebellion ; for I hold that " no authority 
is lawful but that which is either directly given, or," at least, 
" approved by God." Secondly, Concerning the English 
reformation, the first reason you bring why Queen Elizabeth 
did not finish it, is, " because she took not away Episco- 
pacy," the hints or reasons against which government you 
say I take no notice of: now I thought it was sufficient no- 
tice, yea, and answer too, when I told you a negative (as I 
conceived) could not be proved, and that it was for me 
to prove the affirmative ; which I shall either do, or yield 
the argument, as soon as I shall be assisted with books, or 
such men of my opinion who, like you, have a library 
in their brain. And so I must leave this particular, until I 
be furnished with means to put it to an issue ; which had 
been sooner done if I could have had my will. Indeed, 
your second, well proved, is most sufficient, which is, That 
the English Church government is not builded upon the 



210 PURITANISM 

foundation of Christ and the apostles ; but I conceive your 
probation of this doubly defective. For first, albeit our arch- 
bishops and bishops should have professed Church government 
to be mutable and ambulatory, I conceive it not sufficient to 
prove your assertion ; and secondly, I am confident you 
cannot prove that most of them maintained this walking 
position, (for some particulars must not conclude the gene- 
ral,) for which you must find much better arguments than 
their being content with the constitution of the Church, and 
the authority and munificence of princes, or } T ou will fall 
extremely short. As for the retaining of the Roman leaven, 
you must prove it as well as say it, else you say little. But 
that the conforming of the Church discipline to the civil 
policy should be a depraving of it, I absolutely deny ; for I 
aver, that without it, the Church can neither flourish nor be 
happy. And for your last instance, you shall do well to 
shew the prohibition of our Saviour against addition of more 
officers in the Church than he named ; and yet in one sense 
I do not conceive that the Church of England hath added 
any, for an archbishop is only a distinction for order of gov- 
ernment, not a new officer, and so of the rest ; and of this 
kind I believe there are divers now in Scotland, which you 
will not condemn, as the moderators of assemblies, and 
others. 

4. Where you find a bishop and presbyter in Scripture to 
be one and the same, (which I deny to be always so,) it is 
in the apostle's time ; now I think to prove the order of 
bishops succeeded that of the apostles, and that the name 
was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immedi- 
ately chosen by our Saviour, (albiet, in their time, they 
caused divers to be called so, as Barnabas and others,) so 
that I believe this argument makes little for you. As for 
your proof of the antiquity of Presbyterian government, it 
is well that the Assembly of Divines at Westminster can do 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 211 

more than Eusebius could, and I shall believe when I see it : 
for your former paper affirms, that those times were very 
dark for matter of fact, and will be so still for me, if there 
be no clearer arguments to prove it than those you mention : 
for because there were " divers congregations in Jerusalem ;' 
Ergo, what? are there not divers parishes in one diocese? 
(your two first I answer but as one argument,) and because 
" the apostles met with those of the inferior orders for acts 
of government :" what then? even so in these times do the 
deans and chapters, and many times those of the inferior 
clergy, assist the bishops. But I hope you will not pretend 
to say, that there was an equality between the apostles and 
other presbyters, which not being, doth (in my judgment ) 
quite invalidate these arguments. And if you can say no 
more for the churches of Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, 
&c, than you have for Jerusalem, it will gain no ground on 
me. As for St. Jerome, it is well known he was no great 
friend to bishops, as being none himself ; yet take him alto- 
gether, and you will find that he makes a clear distinction 
between a bishop and a presbyter, as yourself confesses : but 
the truth is, he was angry with those who maintained dea- 
cons to be equal to presbyters. 

5. I am well satisfied with the explanation of your mean- 
ing concerning the word fallacy, though I think to have had 
reason for saying what I did ; but by your favour, I do not 
conceive that you have answered the strength of my argu- 
ment, for when you and I differ upon the interpretation of 
Scripture, and I appeal to the practice of the primitive 
Church, and the universal consent of the fathers, to be judge 
between us, methinks you should either find a fitter, or sub- 
mit to what I offer ; neither of which (to my understanding) 
you have yet done, nor have you shewn how, waving those 
judges I appeal unto, the mischief of the interpretation by 
private spirits can be prevented. Indeed, if I cannot prove 



212 PURITANISM 

by antiquity that ordination and jurisdiction belong to bishops, 
(thereby clearly distinguishing them from other presbyters,) 
I shall then begin to misdoubt many of my former founda- 
tions ; as for Bishop Davenant, he is none of those to whom 
I have appealed, or will submit unto. But for the exception 
you take to fathers, I take it to be a begging of the question ; 
as likewise those great discoveries of secrets not known to 
former ages, I shall call new invented fancies, until particu- 
larly you shall prove the contrary ; and for your Roman 
authors, it is no great wonder for them to seek shifts where- 
by to maintain noVelties, as well as the Puritans. As for 
church ambition, it doth not at all terminate in seeking to be 
pope ; for I take it to be no point of humility to endeavour 
to be independent of kings, it being possible that Papacy in 
a multitude may be as dangerous as in one. 

6. As I am no judge over the reformed churches, so 
neither do I censure them, for many things may be avow- 
able upon necessity, which otherwise are unlawful ; but 
know, once for all, that I esteem nothing the better because 
it is done by such a particular Church, (though it were by 
the Church of England, which I avow most to reverence ;) 
but I esteem that Church most which comes nearest to the 
purity of the primitive doctrine and discipline, which I be- 
lieve this doth. Now concerning ordination, I bade you 
prove that presbyters without a bishop might lawfully ordain 
which yet I conceive you have not done ; for (2 Tim. i. 6.,) 
it is evident that St. Paul was at Timothy's ordination ; and 
albeit that all the seventy had their power immediately from 
Christ, yet it is as evident that our Saviour made a clear 
distinction between the twelve apostles and the rest of the 
disciples, which is set down by three of the evangelists, 
whereof St. Mark calls it an ordination, (Mark, iii. 15 ;) and 
St. Luke says, " and of them he chose twelve," &c. (Luke, 
vi. 13 ;) only St. Matthew doth but barely enumerate them 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 213 

by their name of distinction, (Mat. x. 2 ; ) I suppose out of 
modesty, himself being one, and the other two being none, 
are more particular. For the administration of baptism, 
giving, but not granting, what you say, it makes more for 
m« than you ; but I will not engage upon new questions not 
necessary for my purpose. 

7. For my oath, you do well not to enter upon those ques- 
tions you mention, and you had done as well to have omitted 
your instance ;. but out of discretion I desire you to collect 
your answer out of the last section ; and for your argument, 
though the intention of my oath be for the good of the 
Church collective, therefore can I be dispensed withal by 
others than the representative body ? certainly no more than 
the people can dispense with for any oaths I took in their 
favours, without the two Houses of Parliament. As for 
future reformations, I will only tell you that incommodum 
non solvit argument um. 

8. For the king my fathers opinioiij if it were not to 
spend time (as I believe needlessly) I could prove, by living 
and written testimonies, all and more than I have said of 
him, for his persuasion in these points which I now main- 
tain ; and for your defensive war, as I do acknowledge it a 
great sin for any king to oppress the Church, so I do hold 
it absolutely unlawful for subjects, upon any pretence 
whatsoever, to make war, though defensive, against their 
lawful sovereign ; against which no less proofs will make 
me yield but God's word: and let me tell you, that upon 
such points as these, instances as well as comparisons are 
odious. 

9. Lastly, you mistake the query in my first paper to 
which this pretends to answer ; for my question was not 
concerning force of argument (for I never doubted the law- 
fulness of it,) but force of arms, to which, I conceive, it says 
little or nothing, unless (after my example) you refer me to 



214 FURITAM^r 

the former section : that which it doth, is merely the asking 
of the question, after a fine discourse of the several ways 
of persuading rather than forcing of conscience. I close 
up this paper, desiring you to take notice, that there is none 
of these sections but I could have enlarged to many more 
lines, some to whole pages : yet I chose to be thus brief, 
knowing you will understand more by a word than others by 
a long discourse ; trusting likewise to your ingenuity, that 
reason epitomized will weigh as much with you as if it were 
at large. C. R. 

June 22, 1646. 

VI. Mr. Alexander Henderson's Third Paper for His 
Majesty, concerning the authority of the Fathers and 
Practice of the Church. 

July 2, 1646. 
Having, in my former papers, pressed the steps of your 
majesty's propositions, and finding by your majesty's last 
paper, controversies to be multiplied (I believe) beyond your 
majesty's intentions in the beginning, as concerning the re- 
forming power, the reformation of the Church of England, 
the difference betwixt a bishop and a presbyter, the warrants 
of Presbyterian government, the authority of interpreting 
Scripture, the taking and keeping of public oaths, the forc- 
ing of conscience, and many other inferior and subordinate 
questions, which are branches of those main controversies ; 
all which, in a satisfactory manner to determine in few 
words, I leave to more presuming spirits, who either see no 
knots of difficulties, or can find a way rather to cut them 
asunder than to unloose them ; yet will I not use any tergi- 
versation, nor do I decline to offer my humble opinion, with 
the reasons thereof, in their own time, concerning each of 
them; which, in obedience to your majesty's command, I 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 215 

have begun to do already. Only, sir, by your majesty's 
favourable permission, for the greater expedition, and that 
the present velitations may be brought to some issue, I am 
bold to treat that the method may be a little altered, and I 
may have leavs now to begin at a principle, and that which 
should have been inter pracogniia, I mean the rule by 
which we are to proceed, and to determine the present con- 
troversy of Church policy, without which we will be led into 
a labyrinth, and want a thread to wind us out again. In 
your majesty's first paper, the iS universal custom of the 
primitive Church " is conceived to be the rule ; in the second 
paper, section 5, the " practice of the primitive church, and 
the universal consent of fathers," is made a convincing 
argument, when the interpretation of Scripture is doubtful ; 
in your third paper, section 5, "the practice of the primitive 
Church and the universal consent of fathers " is made judge : 
and I know that nothing is more ordinary in this question 
than to allege, " antiquity, perpetual succession, universal 
consent of the fathers," and the " universal practice of the 
primitive Church," according to the rule of Augustine, Quad 
universa tenet ccclesia, nee a Concilio institutum, sed sem~ 
per retenium est, non nisi auilioritate apostolicd traditum 
rectissime creditur. There is in this argument, at the first 
view, so much appearance of reason, that it may much 
work upon a modest mind ; yet, being well examined and 
rightly weighed, it will be found to be of no great weight : 
for beside that the minor will never be made good in the be- 
half of a diocesan bishop having sole power of ordination and 
jurisdiction, there being a multitude of fathers who maintain 
" that bishop and presbyter are one and the same order ;" I 
shall humbly offer some few considerations about the major, 
because it hath been an inlet to many dangerous errors, and 
hath proved a mighty hindrance and obstruction to reforma- 
tion of religion. 



216 PURITANISM 

1. I desire it may be considered, that whiles some make 
two rules for defining controversies, the word of God and 
antiquity, (which they will have to be received with equal 
veneration,) or, as the Papists call them, canonical authority 
and catholic tradition, and others make Scripture to be the 
only rule, and antiquity the authentic interpreter, — the latter 
of the two seems to me to be the greater error ; because the 
first setteth up a parallel in the same degree with Scripture, 
but this would create a superior in the higher degree above 
Scripture. For the interpretation of the fathers shall be 
the Aioti, and accounted the very cause and reason for 
which we conceive and believe such a place of Scripture 
to have such a sense ; and thus men shall have " dominion 
over our faith," (against 2 Cor. i. 24.) " Our faith shall 
stand in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God," 
(1 Cor. ii. 5.) "And Scripture shall be of private inter- 
pretation , for the prophecy came not of old by the will of 
man," (2 Pet. i. 20, 22.) Nisi homini Deus placuerit) 
Deus non erit ; homo jam Deo propitius esse debebit, saith 
Tertullian. 

2. That Scripture cannot be authentically interpreted but 
by Scripture, is manifest from Scripture. The Levites gave 
the sense of the law by no other means but by Scripture 
itself, (Neh. viii. 8.) Our Saviour, for example to us, gave 
the true sense of Scripture against the deprivations of Satan, 
by comparing Scripture with Scripture, and not by alleging 
any testimonies out of the Rabbins, (Mat. iv.) And the 
apostles in their epistles, used no other help but the diligent 
comparing of prophetical writings ; likeas the apostle Peter 
will have to compare the clearer light of the apostles with 
the more obscure light of the prophets, (2 Pet. i. 19.) And 
when we betake ourselves to the fathers, we have need to 
take heed that, with the Papists, we accuse not the Scrip- 
tures of obscurity or imperfections. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 217 

3. The fathers themselves (as they are cited by Protes- 
tant writers) hold this conclusion, that Scripture is not to be 
interpreted but by Scripture itself. To this purpose, amongst 
many other testimonies, they bring the saying of Tertul- 
lian, Surge, Veritas, ipsa scripturas tuas interpretare, quam 
consuetudo non novit ; nam sit nossit, non esset : if it knew 
Scripture, it would be ashamed of itself, and cease to be any 
more. 

4. That some errors have been received and continued 
for a long time in the Church. The error of free-will, be- 
ginning at Justin Martyr, continued till the time of reforma- 
tion, although it was rejected by Augustine, as the divine 
right of Episcopacy was opposed by others. The error 
about the vision of God, " That the souls of saints departed 
see not the face of God till the judgment of the great day," 
was held by universal consent. The same may be said of 
the error of the Millenares ; and which more nearly toueh- 
eth upon the present question, the ancients erred grossly 
about the " antichrist " and " mystery of iniquity," which 
did begin to work in the days of the apostles. Many other 
instances might be brought to prove such universal practice 
of the Church, as was not warranted by the apostles, as in 
the rites of baptism and prayer, and the forming up and 
drawing together of the articles of that creed that is called 
symbolum apostolicum, the observation of many feasts and 
fasts both anniversary and weekly. 

5. That it is not a matter so incredible or impossible as 
some would have it appear to be, for the primitive Church to 
have made a sudden defection from the apostolical purity. 
The people of Israel, in the short time of Moses his absence 
on the mount, turned aside quickly, and fell into horrible 
idolatry, (Exod. xxxii.) Soon after the death of Joshua, 
and the elders that had seen the great works which the 
Lord had done for Israel, there arose another generation 



218 PURITANISM 

after them, which did evil in the sight of the Lord, (Judges, 
ii.) Soon after the building of the temple, and setting of 
religion by David and Solomon, the worship of God was 
defiled with idolatry : when Rehoboam had established the 
kingdom, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with 
him, (2 Chron. xxii. 1.) And the apostle says to the Gala- 
tians, (Gal. i. 6,) "I marvel that you are so soon removed 
unto another gospel." Why then shall we think it strange, 
that in the matter of discipline there should be a sudden de- 
fection, especially it being begun in the time of the apostles? 
I know it is a common opinion, but I believe there be no 
strong reasons for it, that the Church which was nearest 
the times of the apostles was the most pure and perfect 
Church. 

6. That it is impossible to come to the knowledge of the 
universal consent and practice of the primitive Church : for 
many of the fathers wrote nothing at all, many of their wri- 
tings are perished, (it may be that both of these have dis- 
sented from the rest,) many of the writings which we have 
under their names are supposititious and counterfeit, espe- 
cially about Episcopacy, which was the foundation of papal 
primacy. The rule of Augustine aforementioned doth too 
much favour traditions, and is not to be admitted without 
cautions and exceptions. 

Many the like considerations may be added, but these 
may be sufficient to prove, that the unanimous consent of the 
fathers and the universal practice of the primitive Church, is 
no sure ground of authentical interpretation of Scripture. I 
remember of a grave divine in Scotland, much honoured by 
King James of happy memory, who did often profess that 
he did learn more of one page of John Calvin than of a 
whole treatise of Augustine. Nor can there be any good 
reason (many there be against it) why the ancients should 
be so far preferred to the modern doctors of the reformed 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 219 

churches, and the one in a manner deified, and the other 
vilified. It is but a poor reason that some give, fama mira- 
trix scnioris avi, and is abundantly answered by the apolo- 
gist for divine providence. If your majesty be still unsatis- 
fied concerning the rule, I know not to what purpose I should 
proceed, or trouble your majesty any more. 

VII. His Majesty's Fourth Paper for Mr. Alexander 
Henderson. 

July 3, 1646. 
I shall very willingly follow the method you have begun 
in your third paper ; but I do not conceive that my last 
paper multiplies more controversies than my first gave occa- 
sion for ; having been so far from augmenting the heads of 
our disputation, that I have omitted answering many things 
in both your papers, expressly to avoid raising of new and 
needless questions, desiring to have only so many debated as 
are simply necessary to shew, whether or not " I may, with 
a safe conscience, give way to the alteration of Church gov- 
ernment in England." And, indeed, I like very "well to 
begin with the settling of the rule by which we are to pro- 
ceed and determine the present controversy ; to which pur- 
pose (as I conceive) my third paper shews you an excellent 
way, for there I offer you a judge between us, or desire you 
to find out a better, which, to my judgment, you have not 
yet done, (though you have sought to invalidate mine ;) for, 
if you understand to have offered the Scripture, though no 
man shall pay more reverence, or submit more humbly to it 
than myself, yet we must find some rule to judge betwixt 
us, when you and I differ upon the interpretation of the self- 
same text, or it can never determine our questions. As for 
example, I say you misapply that of 2 Cor. i. 14. to me, (let 
others answer for themselves,) for I know not how I make 
other men to have " dominion over my faith," when I make 



220 PURITANISM 

them only ser\ r e to approve my reason. Nor do I conceive 
how 1 Cor. ii. 5. can be applied to this purpose ; for there 
St. Paul only shews the difference between divine and hu 
man eloquence, making no mention of any kind of inter- 
pretation throughout the whole chapter, as indeed Peter 
does, (2 Pet. i. 20.) which, I conceive, makes for me : for, 
since that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private inter- 
pretation, first, I infer that Scripture is to be interpreted, for 
else the apostle would have omitted the word private ; 
secondly, that at least the consent of many learned divines 
is necessary, and so, a fortiori, that of the catholic Church 
ought to be an authentic judge, when men differ. And is 
it a good argument, because (Matth. iv. 4, 7, 10,) Scripture 
is best interpreted by itself, therefore that all other interpre- 
tations are unlawful ? Certainly you cannot think it. Thus, 
having shewed you that we differ about the meaning of the 
Scripture, and are like to do so, certainly there ought to be 
for this, as well as other things, a rule or a judge between us, 
to determine our differences, or at least to make our proba- 
tions and arguments relevant ; therefore evading for this 
time to answer your six considerations, (not, I assure you, 
for the difficulty of them, but the starting of new questions,) 
I desire you only to shew me a better than what I have 
offered unto you. C. R. 

Newcastle, July 3, 1646. 

VIII. His Majesty's Fifth Paper for Mr. Alexander 
Henderson : A Particular Answer to Mr. Alexander 
Henderson's Third Paper. 

July 16, 1646. 
Until you shall find out a fitter way to decide our differ- 
ence in opinion; concerning interpretation of Scripture, than 
the consent of the fathers and the universal practice of the 
primitive church, I cannot but pass my judgment anent 



yOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM!. 221 

those six considerations which you offered to invalidate those 
authorities that I so much reverence. 

1. In the first, you mention two rules for defining of con- 
troversies, and seek a most odd way to confute them, as I 
think ; for you allege, that there is more attributed to them 
than I believe you can prove, by the consent of most learned 
men, (there being no question but there are always some 
flattering fools that can commend nothing but with hyper- 
bolic expressions,) and you know that supposito quolibet, 
sequitur quidlibet. Besides, do you think, that albeit some 
ignorant fellows should attribute more power to presbyters 
than is really due unto them, that thereby their just rever- 
ence and authority is diminished ! So I see no reason why 
I may not safely maintain that the interpretation of fathers 
is a most excellent strengthening to my opinion, though 
others should attribute the cause and reason of their faith 
unto it. 

2. As there is no question but that Scripture is far the 
best interpreter of itself, so I see nothing in this, negatively 
proved, to exclude any other, notwithstanding your positive 
affirmation. 

3. Xot in the next ; for I hope you will not be the first to 
condemn yourself, me, and innumerable others who yet un- 
blameably have not tied themselves to this rule. 

4. If this you only intend to prove, that errors were al- 
ways breeding in the Church, I shall not deny it ; yet that 
makes little (as I conceive) to your purpose. But if your 
meaning be, to accuse the universal practice of the Church 
with error, I must say, it is a very bold undertaking, and (if 
you cannot justify yourself by clear places in Scripture 
much to be blamed : wherein you must not allege that to be 
universally received which was not ; as I dare say that the 
controversy about free-will was never yet decided by oecu- 
menical or general council; nor must you presume to call 



222 PURITANISM 

that an error which really the catholic Church maintained 
(as in rites of baptism, forms of prayer, observation of feasts, 
&/C.) except you can prove it so by the word of God ; and it 
is not enough to say that such a .thing was not warranted 
by the apostles, but you must prove by their doctrine that 
such a thing was unlawful, or else the practice of the Church 
is warrant enough for me to follow and obey that custom, 
whatsoever it be, and think it good : and I shall believe that 
the apostles' creed was made by them (such reverence I 
bear to the Church's traditions) until other authors be cer- 
tainly found out. 

5. I was taught that de posse ad esse was no good argu- 
ment ; and indeed, to me, it is incredible that any custom 
of the catholic Church was erroneous, which was not con- 
tradicted by orthodox learned men in the times of their first 
practice, as is easily perceived that all those defections were 
(some of them may be justly called rebellious) which you 
mention. 

6. I deny it is impossible (though I confess it difficult) to 
t3ome to the knowledge of the universal consent and practice 
of the primitive Church ; therefore, I confess, a man ought 
to be careful how to believe things of this nature ; wherefore 
I conceive this to be only an argument for caution. 

My conclusion is : that albeit I never esteemed any autho- 
rity equal to the Scriptures, yet I do think the unanimous 
consent of the fathers, and the universal practice of the 
primitive Church, to be the best and most authentical inter» 
preters of God's word, and consequently the fittest judges 
between me and you, when we differ, until you shall find me 
better. For example, I think you, for the present, the best 
preacher in Newcastle, yet I believe you may err, and pos- 
sibly abetter preacher may come ; but till then I must retain 
my opinion. -C. R. 

Newcastle, July 16, 1646* 



!\0T GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 22B 



NOTE E. 

LIST OF CONTROVERSIAL PUBLICATIONS ON THE DOCTRINE AND 
DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED 
STATES BEFORE THE REVOLUTION, AS FAR AS KNOWN. 

1723. Cheekley, Mr. John, afterwards Rev. Discourse concerning 1 
Episcopacy, &c. 

1724. 1 The Modest Proof of ike order of the Churches. 

1724. Dickinson, Rev. Jonathan. (Pies.) Elizabethtown, N. J. A 
Defence of Presbyterian Ordination, in reply to The Modest 
Proof Sec. 

1725. Dickinson, and Rev. Samuel Johnson, D. D. (Epis.) This 
year a discussion was carried on, in writing, between a parish- 
oner of Dr. J. and Mr. Dickinson, Dr. J. writing the answer of 
his parishoner. Mr. D. subsequently published his articles, 
revised and enlarged, when Dr. J. published his replies. 
Wigglesworth, Rev. Edmund, D. D., of Cambridge, Mass o 
Answer to Modest Proof &c. 

1727. Foxcroft, Rev. Thomas, of Boston, (Pres.) stepped ill and 
published A Defence of Presbyterian Ordination. 
Johnson, Rev. Dr. S„ published a Reply to the same. 

1728. Cheekley, Mr. J., Speech upon his trial for libel, &c. 
Fisher, Rev. Hugh. (Epis.) The Right of Private Judgment, 
A Sermon. 

1730. Smith, Rev. Josiah. (Pres.) The Divine Right of Private 
Judgment. 

1732. Graham, Rev. John, (Pres.) Southbury, Conn. The Church of 

England. A Ballad. 

1733. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. Plain Reasons for conforming to the 

Church ; a reply to Mr. Graham. 

1734. Graham, Rev. J. Reply to Plain Reasons. 
Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. Answer to the Reply , &c. 

1735. Graham, Rev. J. Rejoinder to the Answer, &c. 

Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A third tract, fyc, which ended this 
dispute. 

1736. Dickinson, Rev. J. In a sermon, The Vanity of hitman insti- 
tutions in the worship of God. 

Beach, Rev. John. (Epis.) A Vindication of the worship of 
the Church of England. 



224 PURITANISM 

1737. Dickinson, Rev. J. A Defence of his Sermon against the 
exceptions of Mr. Beach. 

Beach, Rev. J. An Appeal to the unprejudiced, in a Supple- 
ment to the Vindication, <^c, in reply to Mr. Dickinson. 

1738. Dickinson, Rev. J. The reasonableness of nonconformity to 
the Church of England in points of worship ; a reply to Mr. B. 
Beach, Rev. J. On the duty of loving our enemies, which seemi 
to have ended this controversy. 

1743. Dickinson, Rev. J. On the nature and necessity of regeneration 
with remarks on Dr. Waterland' 's Discourse on regeneration. 

1744. Wetmore, Rev. James, of Rye, N. Y., some time a Congrega- 
tional minister in North Haven, Conn. A Defence of Water 
land's Discourse on Regeneration. 

Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A Letter from Aristodes to Anthades 
on the divine sovereignty and promises. 

1745. Beach, Rev. J. A Sermon on Rom. vi. 23, on the freeness and 
fullness of salvation. 

1746. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A system of morality, &c, designed to 
check the progress of enthusiasm. 

1747. Dickinson, Rev. J. A vindication of God's sovereign free 
grace, &c, against Mr. Beach, with remarks upon Dr. J.'s letter 
of Aristodes to Anthades. 

Beach, Rev. J. Reply to the Vindication, &c. 

Hobart, Rev. Noah, (Pres.) of Fairfield, Conn. Presbyterian 

Ordination. A Sermon preached at the ordination of Rev. 

Noah Wells, of Stamford. 

Wetmore, Rev. J. A Vindication of the Professions of the 

Church of England, in reply to Mr. Hobart. 

1748. Dickinson, Rev. J. A second vindication of God's sovereign 
free grace, against the same. 

Hobart, Rev. N. A serious Address to the members of the 
Episcopal Separation in New England, in repty to Mr. Wetmore. 
Wetmore, Rev. J. The Englishman directed, a general reply 
to the subject of Mr, Hobart's Address. 

1749. Beach, Rev. J. A calm and dispassionate Vindication of the 
Professors of the Church of England. 

Wetmore, Rev. J. Appendix, &c, to the same. 
Caner, Rev. H. A Second Appendix, fyc, to the same. 

1751. Hobart, Rev. N. A second Address to the members of the 
Episcopal Separation, in reply to the above. 

1752. McSparran, Rev. Dr. America dissected, in a series of letters. 



NOT GENUINE PROTESTANTISM. 225 

1756. Beach, Rev. J. A Continuation of the Vindication of the 
Professors of the Church of England. 

1762. Chauncy, Rev. Charles, D. D., (Pres.) Boston. The Validity 
of Presbyterian Ordination, a Dudleian Lecture. 

176*2. Johnson, Rev. Dr. S. A Sermon, on the beauties of holiness 
in the worship of the Church of England. 

1763. Apthorp, Rev. East, (Epis.) Cambridge, Mass. Considerations 
respecting the Society for Propagating the Gospel, 6fC. 
Mayhew, Rev. Jonathan. D. D. (Pres.) Observations on the 
Charter and conduct of the Society, <fcc, in reply to Mr. Apthorp, 
Johnson, Rev. S., D. D. A short Vindication of the Society 
for Propagating tht Gospel. 

[Hobart, Rev. N.?] Advantages of conforming, fyc, written 

under the assumed character of an Episcopal clergyman, and 

personating the Rev. J. Beach, but attributed to Mr. Hobart and 

Rev. Moses Dickinson, of Norwalk. 

Beach, Rev. J, A friendly expostulation, fyc, in reply to "The 

Advantages of Conforming," &c. 

Brown, Rev. Arthur, Portsmouth, N. H. (Epis.) Remarks on 

Mayhew's Reflections on the Church of England. 

Wells, Rev. Noah, (Pres.) Stamford, Conn. Presbyterian 

Ordination Defended and Proved. 

1764. Mayhew, Rev. J. Defence of his Considerations. 

1765. Apthorp, Rev. E. Review of Dr. Mayhew'' s " Considerations," 
Reply to his " Observations," 

Leaming, Rev. Jeremiah, D. D. (Epis.) Defence of the Epis- 
copal Government of the Church. 
Mayhew, Rev. J. A second Defence of his Considerations, Sec. 

1766. A demonstration of the uninterrupted succession of holy Conse- 
cration of English Bishops ; being an Extract from Mr. Ward's 
second Ccmto of his England's Reformation ; with an introduc- 
tion, notes, and appendix, containing the solemn funeral song 
of the nativ e Irish : written by some dissenter, under the as- 
sumed character of a Churchman. 

1T67. Wells, Rev. N. A Vindication of the Validity and divine 
right of Presbyterian Ordination, in reply to Dr. Learning. 
Chandler, Rev. Thomas Bradbury, D. D., of Elizabethtown,, 
N. J. An Appeal to the Public, in behalf of the Church of 
England in America. 

Chauncy, Rev. C Remarks on the Bishop of LJandaff's 
JBermon, &c. 

11 



226 PROTESTANTISM, ETC. 

1768. Chauncy Rev. C. Vindication of a Sermon of the Lord B'p of 
Llandaff. Truth Triumphant, &c, published in New-York. 

1768. Chauncy, Rev. Dr. C. An Answer to Rev. Dr. Chandler's 
Appeal. 

1769. Chandler, Rev. Dr. T. B. The Appeal Defended. 

1770. Leaming, Rev. Dr. J. A second Defence of the Episcopal 
Government, &c. 

1771. Chauncy, Rev. Dr. E. Complete view of Episcopacy from the 
Fathers. 

Chandler, Rev. Dr. T. B. The Appeal further Defended, <fcc. 

A critical Commentary on Aop. Seeker's Letter to 

L. JValpole, concerning Bishops in America. Written in Eng- 
land, and attributed to Archdeacon Blackburn. 
1774. Chandler, Rev. Dr. T. B. An Examination of a critical 
Commentary, &c. 



Printed by John R. M'Gown, No. 106, Fulton-st. N. Y. 



Almighty God, who showest to them that are 
in error the light of thy truth, to the intent 
that they may return into the way of righte- 
ousness ; grant unto all those who are ad- 
mitted into the fellowship of christ's religion, 
that they may avoid those things that are 
contrary to their profession, and follow all 
such things as are agreeable to the same. 
through our lord jesus christ, amen. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



